Is "the game has aged" a legitimate criticism

Yes. It's just another way of saying "It hasn't held up," which is a legitimate criticism for any media.

>>4156182
No criticism is legitimate without justifying your opinions

>>4156182
no, it's a criticism of the critic.

>>4156192
So do we actually want our gams to predict the future?
Not just in story, but in gfx and user interface?

>>4156182
No, and anyone that says that should kill himself
>>4156192
kill yourself

>>4156206
I think we can all agree that some games are considered timeless classics and are still a blast to play, while others now seem too bland, slow, clunky, etc and generally not fun. A game that falls in the latter camp can't be considered anything but a failure.

Some games don't hold up to the test of time. I'll still recommend, say, Mega Man 2 because it still holds up to sidescrolling games released today.

I'll never recommend that someone play Dragon Quest 1, though, because there are far better JRPGs to play, many of which are in the same series.

BTW, people who say "games don't age" are autists who take language far too literally.

>>4156182
In a way it is, yes. If it used something in a contrary way to a contemporary standard that was objectively worse, then yes. For example, using composite video over RGB. One could say composite has aged far worse than RGB because it is objectively worse than it, especially when compared to a contemporary HD standard.

>>4156182
"The game looks dated" is probably a better phrase.

"x aged poorly" as a criticism of things that never change is an interesting phrase. Only the things that are either mastercrafted and timeless, or incredibly forward-looking will stand up to this.

>>4156182
it could be but usually just means "I got frustrated because I suck"

>>4156182
Sometimes, it is just a polite way of saying that the game has shitty controls (usually regarding old PC titles). Not in any other way i can think of.

>>4156182
yes
Suppose you want to play a shooter
Maybe your favourite childhood shooter was GoldenEye
But since then, the mechanics of shooting games have vastly improved, and you'd much rather play one of those newer ones instead

bait by nolife op desperate for some (You)'s

>>4156182
No, because it's assuming aging is an inherently bad thing. Saying a game has "aged poorly" is a bit better but still pretty vague.

>>4156691
>since then, the mechanics of shooting games have vastly improved
But here's where "games have aged" babbies get it wrong. Goldeneye's mechanics are just plain different to modern FPS, so there hasn't been an iterative improvement but a sideways one.

>>4156703
>Goldeneye's mechanics are just plain different to modern FPS, so there hasn't been an iterative improvement but a sideways one.
Take another example then, say, Rebel Moon Rising. It had mouselook, but would you say it was better implemented than in Quake or Build engine games?

Games age because they're software, not art, and therefore they quickly get outclassed by newer software. You wouldn't use Word 1.0 or Windows 95 over their modern equivalents.

>>4156678
this

>>4156182
No, gamers today are so conditioned to the homogenization of modern game controls and mechanics that anything outside that box is immediately deemed trash. It is completely foreign to them when a game "pushes back" and requires the player to think and work around a problem with zero help from the game.

I can totally see how certain design sensibilities infinite looping games or death in point 'n click adventures and certain dead demographics like the tony hawk craze of the mid 90s totally feels out of touch, I'm out of time, but I'm out of my head when you´re not around.

File: alone in the dark trilogy.png (87KB, 220x275px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 220x275px

I can't play Alone in the Dark or System Shock 1 (yes I even tried the enhanced edition). I HAVE beaten Resident Evil 1 and System Shock 2, which I chalk up to both these games cleaning up their predecessors """"faults"""".

But in 2017, I think people have beaten System Shock 1 and the AITD trilogy so it's really a problem with the person in question.

Nobody wants to take a self evaluation as to why they can't play an old game and so they blame the game itself.

Not really. Empire Strikes Back is just as good as it was when it released. It tells it's story extremely efficiently, with good visuals, music, and performances.

Some dogshit that relies entirely on cgi or GIMMICKVISION 3D glasses will age like shit because, shocker, it wasn't a good movie in the first place.

A round of PAC-MAN cost a couple quarters way back when. I'd argue that it still commands that exact same price nowadays, because it hasn't aged at all. It was always an incredible little game.

What the fuck does holding up the test of time even mean? I can play everything I used to just fine. I have problems adapting to some shit from before my time and that I get it, since I never experienced it before, but the notion that your (YOUR) perception of the games you used to love can somehow change because of more modern games just seem nuts. I can't take you guys seriously.

>>4156781
>Some dogshit that relies entirely on cgi or GIMMICKVISION 3D glasses will age like shit because, shocker, it wasn't a good movie in the first place.
Like the Prequels.

>>4156742
People need to stop equating controls with gamer mechanics. Although they are related, Controls are some surface level stuff, bros.

>>4156795
Controls are very important though

It's literally how you control the game. Resident Evil 1 is better than AITD because it maps interaction and action keys to buttons you can press.

>>4156805
Controls are important, but complaining solely about the controls of old games feeds into the "babby can't learn new controls" counter-narrative.

Rarely do I hear any genuine criticism of game mechanics in old games.

File: DF6RiqIUwAQfzgB.jpg (165KB, 1200x846px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x846px

>>4156230
>I'll never recommend that someone play Dragon Quest 1, though, because there are far better JRPGs to play, many of which are in the same series.
As a Dragon Quest fanboy i would never recommend to play the first Dragon Quest, if somebody would like to play the first one i would recommend a remake, the same goes for Dragon Quest II to.

>>4156678
>>4156760
>>4156774
I'm feeling like this is the reason. The average person has no patience and design by committee is becoming the norm for many developers.

File: ff1 ff2.jpg (33KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x500px

>>4156825
I'd say the same about the remakes for FF1-FF3, but even the remakes suck as JRPGs. People could invest their time playing actually good ones like Glory of Heracles 3 or Breath of Fire 2.

>>4156835
>Breath of Fire 2.
this one is easily worse than the FF1-FF3 remakes
the first two BoF games are just NES rpgs parading as SNES rpgs

Reminder than "aged" is not the correct way to convey what you're trying to express, it's "dated".
2 different words, 2 different meanings.
And in the end it's still subjective.

>>4156182
certain aspects of a game don't age. gameplay, controls and graphics are all aspects of the game that remain constant. even though graphics constantly develop and become more advanced, it doesn't remove the appeal of older graphics. if graphics become "aged", they just weren't good in the first place. the most important factors here are things like consistency, having a solid colour palette, etc.

one aspect that DOES age is the novelty value. a game with lacking gameplay value and graphics might still have appeared good at the time of its release, if it introduced novel and interesting features. that value is basically gone today, since the features would now be widely used, or at least used by some later game that made it better.

Usually the people who say it isn't a legitimate criticism are the same people who think that games past a certain year are 100% bad without exception.

So yes, it can be a legitimate criticism of older games.

>>4156853
You mean kind of like how retro isn't the right word for older games, cause Undertale would be retro. Vintage is the word you all mean to use.

>>4156924
>Undertale
What's that? Rings a bell but not sure.

File: ps1 tomb.jpg (139KB, 804x537px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 804x537px

>>4156182
lets put it this way

do you think pic related looks good?
do you think that FVM enhances a game?
do you think tank controls are still comfortable?
do you think early voice acting like shenmue and re1/2 are good?
do you think analog control is unnecessary?
do you think camera control is unnecessary?
do you think bullet sponges are okay?

if you responded "yes" to any of these then games don't age. if you responded "no" to any of these then games age

>>4156943
*FMV

>>4156182
Games had their experimentation phase, kinda like experimental rock.

So yeah, their gameplay and mostly UI is shit since information architecture wasn't even a thing back then.

When you see a game like little big adventure and pay attention to shit like his 4 behaviour states (agressive, discreet, athletic and normal) shit like this has no place today. Or even the inventory management on games like ultima online. Or lane changing in a fighting game like Fatal fury. Or inventory management that was a mess in games like ultima. Or non-mouselook in games like doom. Nobody repeats shit like that, they were a product of their time that nobody knew how to do better. Or a single analog stick on the n64. Some things just don't hold up today and were never replicated.

>>4156943
>do you think pic related looks good?
Maybe on a CRT. the PC version probably looks better than the PS version though.
>do you think that FVM enhances a game?
No, never did.
>do you think tank controls are still comfortable?
Eh, I think they were never really comfortable, but they can work if the game is properly designed around them.
>do you think early voice acting like shenmue and re1/2 are good?
No, never did.
>do you think analog control is unnecessary?
Depends on the game and how it's designed.
>do you think camera control is unnecessary?
ditto above.
>do you think bullet sponges are okay?
No, always hated them. Modern games still have this by the way.

>>4156943
>if you responded "yes" to any of these then games don't age. if you responded "no" to any of these then games age
So what if I answer yes to some and no to the rest?

>>4156943
RE2 has good voice acting though - your post is shit and worthless

>>4156961
>S-STOP MAKING FUN OF MY FAV CHILDHOO GAMES >:((((
go away

>>4156943
>do you think pic related looks good?
it does. it's consistent, and the palette is good. it's also cool how it resembles pixel art, despite being in 3d.
>do you think tank controls are still comfortable?
if you have the spatial understanding of an adult, they should be. it's also a matter of empathy: if you can see a character on a screen, and understand that what he sees is different than what you see, then you should be able to play with tank controls.
>do you think early voice acting like shenmue and re1/2 are good?
it was always considered shit, but was still accepted for the campiness. it's not something we suddenly realised in retrospect.
>do you think analog control is unnecessary?
subjective, but a game can function perfectly without it. how else would keyboard only PC games even be possible?
>do you think camera control is unnecessary?
depends on the game in question.

>>4156182
no criticism is good unless you can explain it. why is it dated, and how isn't it just your subjective opinion?

>>4156943
>do you think pic related looks good?
yes
>do you think that FVM enhances a game?
depends
>do you think tank controls are still comfortable?
yes and now I know you're a pleb
>do you think early voice acting like shenmue and re1/2 are good?
bad voice acting has its charm
>do you think analog control is unnecessary?
do you think analog control is a straight upgrade from d-pad?
>do you think camera control is unnecessary?
another strange question
>do you think bullet sponges are okay?
tons of bullet sponges in modern games and yes a big fat enemy is ok sometimes.

I find it utterly baffling that some people try to claim that games can't age. What is their angle? What are they trying to protect?

>>4157064
they played the game as a kid. it's that simple

>>4157064
My problem isn't with people who criticize old games, or that say games that came after made the forumula better.
What triggers my 'tism is when they say games actually age, as if the games were different back then than they are now, like the code itself changed over time or something.

>>4157064
How has PAC-MAN aged? How has Out Run aged? How has Donkey Kong aged? What elements of their design made them more fun in the past than if you were to play them today?

The games have consistent rules, the player character has responsive controls, the graphics allow you to easily and quickly parse the information on screen, and the sound design assists in giving the player additional information without diverting their attention from the action. They are perfectly consistent little works.

Extrapolating that further, you can judge console games by the same criteria. Super Mario Bros isn't a good game because it has CUTTING EDGE GRAFIXXX, it's because it is a well designed platformer.

I actually struggle to think of examples of games that actually "age" other than multiplayer titles that are entirely dependent on being at a specific moment in time interacting with specific people.

>>4157083
>How has PAC-MAN aged? How has Out Run aged? How has Donkey Kong aged?
A lot. It wouldn't pass as a browser game these days.

Games do "age" but only in the eye of the beholder. Everyone is different and it will really come down to how much modern games have changed your expectations. People who act like games age in the grand scheme/objectively or spout some nonsense about the industry moving on need to fuck off.

>>4156943
what you don't get is shit like this was considered REAL LIFE yesterday
going from an atari 2600 to a sms was a HUGE STEP

>>4156943
You're not accounting for the fact that people may not have liked or agreed with those notions in the first place.

>>4157083
I recently played Leisure Suit Larry 3. It uses crossdressing for humor and there is a comedy hut where the comedian tells jokes about ethnic minorities.
You don't see such stuff in modern games.

File: 857125_orig[2].jpg (194KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 600x800px

Why must we have this thread over and over again? When people say a game or other permanent thing "hasn't aged well" what they're saying is that an important part of its original appeal has become less appealing from a modern perspective.

Graphics are the number one thing that "ages". Very early games from the 70s and early 3D games especially often relied on the "gee-whiz" element but nobody is amazed by graphics now. The best that can be expected is for graphics to have "held up" meaning they were well designed within the context of the "medium"

Story holds up better but the JRPG boom of the 90s really hinged on their Easter style of storytelling being a novelty to Westerners who were just coming to be fully aware of it largely thanks to FF7. These days there are still JRPGs using the same storytelling form and now the average gamer isn't nearly as into it and often looks back on those 90s blockbuster JRPGs and sees the same kind of storytelling

Gameplay should be what ages the least. A fun mechanic should remain a fun mechanic forever but sadly the freshest crop of "typical gamers" often considers old-school gameplay to be too difficult. However, serious gamers don't and it's still the serious "core" gamers who make most of the reviews, I hope. Who knows about the future.

We should also take into consideration just how much the gamer community has expanded Even though "retro gamers" make up a fairly small fraction of gamers in general and the periphery ones who like to harp on classic games "aging" are like half, I think that even the fraction of a fraction of gamers who are core retro gamers amount to similar if not greater numbers than the entire gaming community back in the day and I think the market reflects that. For most games to be worth just as much or more used now as they did used a month after release there must be.

File: HksPTbE-noscale[1].jpg (565KB, 2500x1630px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 2500x1630px

So maybe "the game has aged" might be a legitimate complaint to a majority of gamers, the core retro gamers probably would not consider it to be and will see through the bells and whistles just as easily as they see through them on modern games that pushed them to be retro gamers in the first place. Just call a shit game a shit game

>>4156182
No, you have to "be there" to feel a fucking game and you have to understand the context in wich it came from. Goldeneye for N64 is a masterpiece and there was nothing quite like it in the 90's home consoles. Comparing the game to halo or something more technically advance doesn't change anything.

If the game was well received at the time of it's release but doesn't seem good now, the truth is that it was never very good and it was being held up by a then new gimmick which is now stale.

Games don't age; we do, and age makes us wiser.

>>4156753
Games have their own personal visuals and sound composition. Therefore have some art merit in a lot of ways.
You can't get outclassed in the music territory if a newer composer is fucking terrible even if the technology is better. Your argument is shit and bait.

Please get out of this board if you think older games are worse than neo-videogames.

>>4156783
Most people complaining about games ageing weren't even there back then. It's painfuly obvious by the things they say, ie tank controls being ever comfortable and not something you're supposed to get used to. They didn't change their perception of anything.

Any recommendations for retro games that aren't dilapidated and falling apart? I'd like to get into retro games but they're too old and crumbling apart. Help

No it's usually an excuse used by gamefaqs or neogaf users that suck at an older game.

>>4157114
That's just cheap writing though, and it was always cheap even at its release. We just weren't wise enough at the time. Our tastes have shifted, but it didn't age itself into being different.

>>4157114
You used to see this outside of games. Obviously you won't see this today. Like you wouldn't see tranny characters with personalized pronouns you would see in baldur's gate today.

>>4156703
They are different because standards have changed, in part due to other games responding to the shortcomings of games like Goldeneye.

>>4157083
It depends on the game, arcade games are classics to this day because they are easy to pick up and play and fun whereas a game like resident evil one is clunky, laughable, and NOT easy to pick up and play. At the time it was passable (even though people complained about it back then too, google some archived forums) but there simply wasn't anything better yet. As time passed, the genre and games as a whole learned their lessons and gradually changed. This is why it is so jarring to go back and play a fifth gen survival horror game for instance after being spoiled by newer games.

HOW is this difficult to understand?

>>4157149
Alright so in other words, games age

File: 1501443521212.jpg (52KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x338px

>that game is like, so dated

>>4157336
that was a joke you stupid shit

>>4157325
>(even though people complained about it back then too
So you just proved his point. Tank controls were always clunky and always took some time to get used to. That was as true back then as it is now.

>>4157325
But that's the thing: even at release it had those issues! The only thing that wore off was the pizzazz of the presentation. The people that actually criticized the game for those problems at release turned out to be right, because it always did have those flaws. It didn't "age poorly", it was a very flawed game that got very popular for surface level, superficial reasons.

>>4157079
>What triggers my 'tism is when they say games actually age, as if the games were different back then than they are now, like the code itself changed over time or something.
I've never seen anyone say that, I've only seen people interpret it as such.

>>4157083
>How has PAC-MAN aged? How has Out Run aged? How has Donkey Kong aged? What elements of their design made them more fun in the past than if you were to play them today?
So you think that the fact that games can age means that every old game has aged, and saying that games age is an attack on your personal favorite old games? Is that what's going on here? Jesus fucking Christ.

yes, especially when they have a really shit frame rate

>>4157324
No, seriously. Modern FPS haven't followed Goldeneye mechanics at all. The games that do are the ones that follow Thief like Dishonored, since Goldeneye inspired much of Thief.

What exactly do you perceive as the shortcomings of Goldeneye? Please don't mention graphics or controls. Something tangible about the mechanics, please. I've yet to hear an example in this whole thread about any old game.

File: CherryHD.png (2MB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x960px

>>4157385
>I've never seen anyone say that, I've only seen people interpret it as such.
Maybe because that's what aged means.
I've seen people claim this or that retro game was good back then, but not anymore, which is implying the game has somehow changed over time, even if they don't really mean it in a literal way, it's still as stupid.
What actually happens and what people who want to criticize old games can't grasp, is that these games are still the same ones and that if they have something people complain about today (tank controls, camera), those complaints were also back then, maybe in a less whiny, entitled way, but they were there. People noticed those flaws, even if we didn't have better games to compare to, we could imagine something better. VR has been a thing in collective fantasy since many many decades ago, before most of the stuff we cover on /vr/ even existed. We know that we want an actual virtua reality with real-life controls and graphics. We're still not even close to being there. Modern games will also look dated. Younger folk at /v/ already see PS2 graphics as we see NES or even Atari.
Our perception changes, not the games. So when people discuss about "games aging", they're just discussing on an endless loop of personal experiences and tastes. We don't really gain anything out of these, and honestly, most of the times (if not all) is just bait because what better place to troll people about old games being shit than /vr/?

>>4157407

The sheer slow speed of Goldeneye is what kills it.

Goldeneye has aged in respect to the fact that Quake won, it's the better design. People just didn't realize it at the time.

>Expecting manchildren who've replayed and obsessed over their childhood games up until adulthood to understand that personal standards change.

>>4157440
But nobody is saying retro games are perfect. It's the other way around, most likely teenagers that can't grasp the concept of enjoying games that may have flaws that later games did better. It's not like current games are perfect, far from it. Polycount, textures and framerate can do so much, but shit design is still shit design.

>>4157415
>The sheer slow speed of Goldeneye is what kills it.
???
It's a stealth-focused game, not an arena shooter.

>Goldeneye has aged in respect to the fact that Quake won
Oh I see, your post is just about console vs PC point scoring

>>4157506

No, it's about quality controls and gameplay, something Goldeneye does so poorly people explicitly pick Oddjob and counterpick with Natalya because the controls don't adequately account for such a simple problem.

There is no stealth in Goldeneye, by the way. Every level turns into a bloodbath with you killing dozens of soldiers at the very least.

>>4157114
Maybe you should understand the comedy of the era you're bitching about before you say that it's "better" that you live in an era of hardcore censorship in comedy.

>>4157114
You don't, but you absolutely should.

>>4157513
This is why later games like Nightfire are in fact better, more genuine Bond games.

>>4157513
>counterpick with Natalya
Huh, what does Natalya do?

"This game hasn't aged well" is code for it doesn't hold your hand like modern games and I am not good enough to compensate.

>>4157635

She's slightly smaller than the other characters besides Oddjob. Because of this, she has an easier time hitting his head than characters that are Bond's height.

>>4157093
I read some really alarming things on here at times

Don't mean to pick on anyone in particular since a good part of the thread is worth carpet bombing

>>4156221
Nice counter argument, beautiful points.

retard. Why isn't it a legitimate criticism?

>>4157705
I mean, I do love Out Run out of those games, it's still missing features that Power Drift and Turbo Outrun had.

>>4157407
I'd say the overly generous aim assist, lack of aiming down the sights, general movement and mobility mechanics

>>4156182
Games don't magically become worse as time goes on. If it's not well-made now, it wasn't well-made back then, and a game that's well made now will still be well-made 20 years from now.

The game remains the same. Is our perception that changes.

>>4156195
>No criticism is legitimate without justifying your opinions
This.

The problem with nearly argument pertaining to retro gaming is that it's going to be based heavily on opinion. There are exceptions (which system had the biggest game library in the US market, what sold the most copies for the year 1990, etc.) Opinion is what makes up 99% of criticism or praise of retro games.

i'm surprised that people here get so worked up over this.
sometimes i wonder if they just take it literally.

>>4156182
i always figured it was a short way of saying "i don't enjoy playing this game anymore for reasons"
i don't want to talk about how i don't enjoy commando or gunsmoke anymore for any real length of time.
i'd rather talk about FFI since i can still play and enjoy that

>>4156182
Dumb frogposter

>>4157513
>here is no stealth in Goldeneye, by the way. Every level turns into a bloodbath with you killing dozens of soldiers at the very least.
Confirmed for never playing the game on 00 Agent (which is the actual full game since lower difficulties lock out half of the levels). You are so fucking ignorant

>>4156182
No. It's easy to predict the past. Historical value is relative to context. Judging the past by the values of the present is destructive arrogance. Far more productive to strive to improve the present towards a future. The former philosophy declares that all games will be shit for more time than they are good. The latter declares that games will get better and better as they stand upon the shoulders of giants. You tell me which outlook is healthier.

File: 1398389448709.jpg (146KB, 600x808px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 600x808px

>>4156182
People know what they like or don't like, but expressing why can be difficult.

"___ hasn't aged well" lets you sound like a critic without really saying anything about a game, aside from it's old.

It's pretty vague but yeah. Some games were novel from a technology standpoint and that outweighed their flaws. Now it's not novel, and all that's visible is the flaws. Sure, the game didn't "age", it's the same as it always was. Games are designed to suit their players, and now they don't suit their players. That's "aged" to me.

Entertainment doesn't lose anything with time. Things that do "age" are practical things, no one is interested in getting a vintage dentist experience or trying out retro surgery. Some people like very old games and some don't. "Hasn't aged well" is a snotty, wannabe critic phrase for people with their heads too far up their asses.

>>4157064

Because a lot of the time, I go back and play retro games that I never played as a kid, and they're fun. And then, I see some underaged bag of shit say "wow this game AGED LIEK MILK XDDDD" and it makes me wonder what they're even doing on this board.

>>4157941
Exactly. Saying that something 'ages' is a roundabout way of saying that one's opinion of it has changed. The game doesn't change, it can't change. There is nothing about it that can 'age' unless people specifically refer to the game data becoming corrupted or the storage media physically deteriorating. People, rather than admitting they liked something that wasn't good in the first place, believe that a game somehow 'lost' its goodness with time, like a leftover balloon from a great party that eventually deflates. That's stupid and dishonest but that's just how people are. At the same time it's just as stupid to claim that a good game was never good because it has 2D graphics or doesn't have voice acting, as if a 3D gameworld or voice acting are mandatory today rather than something devs can choose from many different options available to them.

>The games don't physically change, only opinion changes!
Thanks for pointing it out, nobody EVER thought of that that way when describing game as "aged badly."

games don't age badly, people grow soft

>>4156182
For sports games, yes.

Yes. Unintuitive menu navigation is probably the easiest example to reference for dated mechanics. It doesn't ruin the game, but it does drag down the experience, especially for long RPGs.

>>4158559
Then stop using your language incorrectly.

>>4158608
Quit being an autist who takes everything literally.

>>4158623
But it's not even correct in a non-literal way, stop using wrong words.
Use dated, not aged.

>>4158559
when you say that the game has aged, you strongly imply that the fault lies with the game.

>>4158624
Wew you're deep in the spectrum.

>>4158626
epic argument

>>4158623
>If you didn't finish primary education, then you're an autist
ok.

>>4158629
To be fair, an autist would struggle to complete primary education.

>>4158629
Well you clearly didn't.

>>4158604
How is unintuitive menus dated? New games have them, old games have them.

it's like saying that shitty hitboxes are dated. It doesn't make much sense

>>4156962
>/vr/ arguments in a nutshell

>>4157135
And like always, the only sensible post gets ignored.

>>4157064
Nostalgia is a powerful thing.

>>4157478
>But nobody is saying retro games are perfect.
If no one believed this, this thread wouldn't still be alive.

>>4156182
I love the phrase, as it's a quick indicator that the one uttering it has nothing worthwhile to share.

>>4158993
But that's not >>4157409

>>4157328
They don't. They are almost inmortal pieces of coding that will be saved in some way or another with the help of technology.
The only that age is your fucking body and brain slowly dying trying to be superior.

>>4159035
I'm aware.

File: gwctpxihhmiib62ykfkv[1].jpg (85KB, 800x521px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x521px

>>4158993
I do it for posterity plus dat posterior

>>4158674
How so?
Just stop saying aged when it's not proper, anon.

>>4159035
This, thread should have ended there.

It's not really the game has "aged" per say, but similar ways of handling a situation has changed over the years.

For instance in the first dragon quest on NES there was no direct interaction button. You first pulled up a list, and then chose a command. Now that would seem archaic and very dated. It doesn't mean though the game somehow functions worse knowing this information, it's the same game it always was. It's just that you prefer the newer method.

>>4156182
I feel like a better turn of phrase would be "For the time" there are lots of games that in the context of there era are solid gold (even if now its solid gold shit.)

>any game below 60fps in 2017
Unplayable anti-consumer mess.
>N64 games struggle to keep 15fps
Perfect, flawless. Just as the developers intended.

>>4159204
What? Plenty of popular games today are 30fps.
Also, nobody said N64 is perfect, probably no console is.
Stop shitposting and go back to /v/.

>>4159215
>What? Plenty of popular games today are 30fps.
And they get shittalked to death, if games don't age technology certainly does.

>>4159219
You're still wrong in that nobody called the N64 (or any other console) to be perfect. And honestly, if /v/ kids call modern games with sub-60fps shit or not has nothing to do with games being actually popular (i.e., selling well), also it'ss not really relevant to /vr/, so as I said, go back to /v/, and never return.

It's a legitimate meme

Goldeneye didn't age well. Dk64 didn't age well. Thps 1 and 2 aged well. So there.

>>4156924
>You mean kind of like how retro isn't the right word for older games, cause Undertale would be retro. Vintage is the word you all mean to use.
People will never use retro correctly anymore when talking about video games.

>>4159570
>I like Thief, but I don't like Goldeneye and DK64.
Okay.

>>4156182
Yes, it's valid -- what I think is NOT valid is saying the graphics have aged poorly as a serious criterion against the game -- when focus should be on gameplay, controls and mechanics

"Dated" graphics shouldn't be a driving point to like or not like a game and other things should be considered first

>>4159204

>MY GWAFIX! MY FWAMEWATE! BAWWWWWW!

/v/ please go and stay go

>>4159731

Dated graphics can be a serious issue for some people, though. I've known people to get motion sickness playing Perfect Dark during 4 player.

>this much rage over semantics

>>4158512
right there with you. I wasn't real into gaming when I was younger so I didn't play anything but the big stuff on the big consoles, and they were always friends'. I didn't own any games or consoles, or a PC that could handle anything other than microsoft pinball. Now that I'm going back and playing everything I missed and discussing them I get people telling me I'm "nostalgic" for games I didn't even play until two weeks before I bring them up. People have gotten so used to using "nostalgia" as a thought ending argument that they don't even think of the possibility that just maybe the person they're talking to just LIKES the game and isn't trying to harken back to the better days of their youth.

>>4159891
Right? Let's just stop calling videogames videogames, we could just call them spaghetti. Same thing, if you don't understand what I'm trying to say, you're an autist.

>>4156182

It's legitimate criticism if you can justify it. Give examples, show people where you're coming from. If you can't do this, you likely just suck shit at the game. Most people fall into this category.

>>4158512
Aged =/= bad?
Drakan: Order of the Flame is game I really like. No nostalgia about it. But idk how you can say it didn't age with a straight face.

>>4160223
>Double dragon on NES is dated the lag in controls is noticeable and the jumping mechanics leaves a little more to be desired especially in stage 5. When too many sprites or on the screen the game itself can't handle it and will sometimes make the characters more opaque. It's a great fun game for the time I can see why many people just absolutely love it but today we notice the flaws 7/10 what a fantastic ride.
WHAT would you day to this review?

>>4160223
Basically everything pre gen 3 game as it ultimately is obtuse, about score which is meaningless to most players today, lacks depth, or a combination of these. I respect these games for their historical value but I don't see how they could be fun unless you are nostalgic for them or maybe playing them for like 5 min.

>>4160250
Is this satire? I agree with it.
There are maybe a handful of exceptions, or "it's fun with friends" Anything can be fun with friends.

>>4156182

It depends mostly on why they say it's aged. I mean, if a game uses keyboard aiming, i'd say it's aged in a negative way, because I think that mouse aiming as a whole was a great development for PC shooters. But if they're just saying the game is old, that doesn't mean squat.

>>4160239

It's fair. The jumping is pretty shit in Double Dragon, although I don't personally have a problem with it.

>>4160259
I didn't mean it as satire. I guess I could have worded it better.

>>4156182
I think its a lazy criticism that attempts to beg the listener to draw specific conclusions, but in many cases those conclusions aren't necessarily true.

I have seen many games criticized and people say the game has aged, when what they really mean are the graphics aren't that good, or the controls aren't that good. They don't really address any of the problems with that statement. Is the gameplay stale and outpaced by superior titles? Are the controls clearly poor, even perhaps for the time at release?

Perhaps you could say it is simply an attack on nostalgia, claiming the game has aged and your nostalgia is no longer representative of reality.

>>4156182
Yes and no.

A lot of older games have mechanics that would be seen as needlessly convoluted or puzzling.

Simon's Quest is a prime example, especially when you compare it directly to Symphony of the Night. Simon's Quest has a lot of grinding, and is totally reliant on the player being able to decipher the engrish clues to figure out where to go. Symphony of the Night is much more streamlined, and feels like a better game because of it.

If your criticism is just "Its aged poorly" it's not good. As long as you justify it, it becomes valid criticism

>>4160239
You're off to a good start in general but
>the jumping mechanics leaves a little more to be desired especially in stage 5.
Would need specific examples and more explanation of what that means.
The rest of what you're saying about lag in controls and the game not handling large amounts doesn't support your idea that the game is dated, just that the game has issues.
People would be complaining about these things on release as well.

>it didn't age well
>it aged like milk
>it doesn't hold up

What the hell do these even mean in the first place? Quantify this.
It didn't "age well" compared to what? Its contemporaries? No, that can't be it. That wouldn't make any sense. Its descendants? The ones that came out years later, on better hardware, and had everything that came before them to draw inspiration/knowledge from? Well now it doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison.
Maybe it's time to admit this is just a "meme" meaning "I don't like it" or "I wasn't around when it was relevant and can't see the value in it."
Really, a game is either good or it isn't. It didn't "age" well or poorly, it either sucked or it didn't when it was new. Time didn't change that. The fact that Hasbro can still sell a gorillion copies of "Monopoly" every year is fairly telling. The damned game came out in 1903. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's still going strong over a century later. It didn't "age well" or any other such vagueness, it just didn't suck when it was new.

>>4160089
Nice hyperbolic false equivalency.

>>4160370
What you guys fail to understand is that Simon Quest was always convoluted and didn't stuck with a lot of people back then either, while a lot of new players can pick it up just fine.

You're either used to that design or you're not, it's not that "shit was good for its time".

>>4160808
just excuses of faggots who are to stupid to just look at how things are

>>4160809
Why false? Spaghetti and video games are basically the same, same as Aged and Dated.

>>4158623
Putting the blame on a piece of media for changing when you mean to say that you're old and have changed isn't a language issue, it's being unable to accept your own aging mind and body

>>4156182
It's relative. But faulty.

It's basically saying they can't adapt how to things was and are biased towards whatever new things are out.

Nothing ages in entertainment.

>>4160808
>The fact that Hasbro can still sell a gorillion copies of "Monopoly" every year is fairly telling. The damned game came out in 1903.

Except Monopoly has changed removing some of the kino pieces and changing names and places.

I have never understood why just because a mechanic has been refined in a new game, that makes obsolete the older game. I mean, why if I want to play a James Bond fps (like Goldeneye) do I have to play Halo or Half Life because they improve the mechanics?

Do I have to play Need for Speed instead of Out Run just because the driving its smoother in it? Videogames are more than just mechanics. Sometimes a game can hook you because of the atmosphere, characters, music, without it being particularly well designed.

>>4156182
Nope.
Some say if mechanics get better with the times then it feels wrong/bad if you replay the old game but that's wrong.
If you played it fine even once before there's no reason to completely forget the controls or to compare the graphics, music etc to unaccurate standards.
It's like learning to ride a bike then exclusively be a passenger in a car for ages, it's not that returning to the bike is magically harder but only that you are too lazy to bother trying to remember how it's done.

>>4157953
>Opinion is what makes up 99% of criticism or praise of retro games.

actually it's what makes 100% of any criticism. Exactly what is and is not a standard for excellence is itself an opinion

>>4156182
Of course it is. In some cases mechanics and gameplay have evolved, matured and been refined.

For example

>aged badly
Jagged Alliance 2, Golden Sun
>aged well
Total Annihilation, Fallout 1&2

It raises interesting questions about game design seeing what mechanics carry over the generations and which become archaic.

>>4156182
No as the game is the same as it was when release, no better or worse unless it has been patched and made shittier without an option to not patch EG MMO's or multiplayer only things.

What people really mean 99% of the time is that they hate older graphics or actual difficulty which is them aging, not the game.

>>4156182
If a series has an experimental first entry but the series goes on to refine the mechanics then people will say it feels tough to go back to the first entry. I think this is an example of what you're talking about.

>>4156182
Games don't really age, but their concepts are improved upon and older games are sometimes made completely useless by comparison to their contemporaries.

Of course a lot of this has to factor in nostalgia as well...like tons of people consider Baldur's Gate to be the pinnacle of RPGs, but they played it when it came out...I didn't play it until the modern era after playing tons of RPGs that came later and I think it's shit.

Other games, like Devil May Cry I loved when it came out, but after Ninja Gaiden and Bayonetta it's hard to go back to.

>>4162993
>It raises interesting questions about game design seeing what mechanics carry over the generations and which become archaic.
no it doesn't

>>4156182
this thread has aged

>>4163423
Not that guy but I think it does. I don't know about his examples but there are definitely game design choices that have come and gone as fads, popular at one time (due to novelty, for example) but eventually disliked (maybe after being overused for years, or replaced by a better alternative that becomes possible with changes in technology).
At the same time there are other game mechanics that are timelessly fun.

>>4163423
Some old games can be picked up and played, even complex ones. Others require constant backchecking to manuals and walls of frustration and not because they have great depth. The latter kind have aged badly and the interesting question is why.

It can be a legitimate criticism but only rarely is in reality. One example of a game that hasn't aged well is FF1, along with most other NES era RPGs. The technology simply wasn't there at the time for these kinds of games. They were interesting and presented a bigger world than players were used to at the time, but have little value today.

But what normally gets shat on for not aging well is stuff that is merely unconventional for modern standards. Strange controls are normally the first thing that people cry about, and difficulty the second. In these cases it's usually a lack of patience and refusal to understand the game because it doesn't adhere to arbitrary modern conventions.

>>4163631
no it isn't.

>>4163879
It is because I say it is. That's about as much reason as you've given for why it isn't. For further proof that it's interests people read the discussion in this thread and many more like it on /vr/.

>>4163789
Both FF1 and DQ1 are still fun and playable even today, I don't know why people on this very board seem to insist otherwise. They're a little slow and grind heavy, sure, but they're hardly a chore because of it. I also always get a kick on how so many of the monster sprites in the first Final Fantasy are blatantly stolen from the AD&D Monster Manual.

Kinda - it's often used as an easy criticism for for something that's hard to define:

- The Context in which the game was made
- The Technology available at the time
- The Controls

Unfortunately it's an overused term that's often used to describe just not 'getting it' with an older game.

Ultima 4 is a good example. The game's still great - but few modern gamers can get into it today.

Why?

Most of the game's story is written down in the instruction manual, and the game will tell you to flick to a random page to get more of the story.

This was done just due to the limitations of file sizes at the time. It worked back then, but today no one is going to leaf through a fucking manual they printed off from the fucking internet to get a fucking story for a fucking game that looks like it was made in a fucking word document.

>>4165287
That's not the main reason Ultima is hard to get into. Here's a long answer.
http://www.filfre.net/2014/07/ultima-iv/
Tldr: it's tedious and obtuse

>>4156753
This. While the other poster talked about visuals and music, the part that ages the most is controls. Getting good is not an option either when you're wrestling against controls (especially from the N64/PS era.)

>>4156753
I wouldn't use windows 10 over windows 7 or xp though.

>>4165374
Read through half of it so far... good points all around.

But I do stand by the fact that just playing it today while flicking through a manual is so anachronistic that no one over 40 can bother with it. That's the big gateway to entry. All other points and flaws with the game are secondary

>>4157135
This guy is right.
The playing of a game is never ever exclusively experiencing it, it is also about comparing it to everything else in your life. This is true to everything. That is why things age- That is what makes and breaks clichés- the princess rescue storyline is bad now, but once upon a time it was brand new and good. The trope aged, just like anything else may age.

I dont know what can possibly motivate you to tripfag. Stop that shit.

>>4165502 here.
Yes. This implies games "get worse" over time- That is, specifically, that they lose value for younger audiences. This is not necessarily a bad thing, we only perceive it so because of a natural and irrational selfish desire. It just takes some detachment to accept that our experiences are un-replicable, that is, that our classics will not be the next gen's classics, and that thats okay. We ourselves are part of that cycle.

The loss of value is true and natural for movies and music as well- the clearest example of this is just that you barely ever hear about classical music being made today. If things dont age, how come arent all genres very balanced in popularity? How come the industry goes through phases? Thats because releasing classical music today has barely any relevance, because people have seen it all before, perhaps better than yours.
At a point in time, pre-Socratic philosophers nobody nowdays ever hear about were considered classics. Why arent they recognized though? Because their ideas aged badly!

The above mentioned is, of course, subject to the manner in which people perceive this sense of time passing and their media consumption- For someone who grew up playing Megaman, Hollow Knight is probably a fair game- But for someone who will grow up playing Hollow Knight, and only later on play Megaman, it will not be a good experience, because, in their point of view, its more of the same they've been with, but worse. They've seen plataformers done better.
It may still retain value, but when some value is lost because of prior experiences the target audience is likely to have gone through (if you're likely to have played Hollow Knight), then the reviewer can righteously state the work has aged. Its old, so expect things associated to that, which are probably clunkyness and bad graphics.

For gameplay specific aging, that is like a casual filter.

Games that age well are those who remain relevant even after years of their release.

>>4162993

>>aged well
> Fallout 1&2
Not even New Vegas exists.

>>4162993
>Golden Sun
Did this series age poorly, or were you just too young to recognize it's flaws?

>>4156182
Methods of control, UI and general game design changes over time. Sometimes we find preferable systems, like dual stick controls and when we go back to anything before that it feels fundamentally clunky.

>>4156182
Kys frogposter

It is a legit concept, but a misnomer. Hype is a force that applies to any recent releases, across all media. Once the hype dies out, a game will either stand up to a revisit outside its original context, or fall down.

>>4164320
DQI is, FFI isn't.

>>4156182
You need to look at this from case by case perspective. Some mechanics and design decisions are legitimately obsolete and superior equivalents have been developed since. For example Ocarina of Time first popularized the lock-on 3rd person melee combat but its controls and usability are nowhere near as good as other 3rd person games released later with similar but improved systems.

Even legendary games such as Half-Life are not void of criticism in this regard. A particular mechanic of the game was made obsolete the very same year by Thief. To clear obstacles you need to learn to crouch-jump. In other words, you can't climb anything (except ladders lol). Gordon needs to be able to jump onto everything and land directly on his feet. Half-Life prides itself for its uninterrupted immersion, but as much as crouch-jumping is directly player-driven, it's a ridiculous and unrealistic mechanic compared to the mantling systems of Thief and games that came after.

I don't think it's possible for an entire game to have aged poorly. Even Pong can still charm you with its simplicity and purity, compared to sports games with advanced physics and complex rules.