Is

Is
>it aged poorly, it's outdated
a legitimate argument? Can a game simply "stop" being good after a certain amount of time has passed, or do people not respect the differences of past games?

Those people are full of shit.

It's still a good game, as fun as the new ones.

I'm playing through demons souls with my friend for the first time since buying it on release and letting it gather dust for years.

It's fucking amazing but I still prefer bloodborne

It doesn't stop being good, but it can become a less enjoyable experience if something better comes out in the meantime.

Demon's Souls is a good example. I played Dark Souls 1 and 2 first, and Demon's Souls honestly seemed worse than both in every possible way. It was still a fun game, but severely limited by the fact that I didn't play it on release.

Likewise, game review websites have recently been panning the Assassins Creed 2 collection saying that the games are "dated" because more recent games in the franchise have been a direct upgrade on the old mechanics.

That said, if a game was good to begin with, it should remain good later - maybe just not as good as when it was released.

When it comes to controls, I think that cane be a legitimatize factor. Some older games had fucked up controls that are still hard to use to this day. But that doesnt make the game stop being good

It depends, it's kinda hard for the average person to enjoy say Final Fantasy 1 if they're too used to modern games.

You mean funnier then the new ones

While DS isn't an example, I think some games can age poorly. Sometimes a game is great because it pioneered a new design technique or piece of tech, but after that new feature has been improved upon by other games it's simply not interesting in the original anymore.

For example, Goldeneye was a very innovative game when it was first released. But anything it did has been done by better games, so going back you pretty much just experience some really shit controls and terrible graphics.

Even then, aging poorly can be fixed with some simple updates. There's an emulated version of Goldeneye that adds HD textures and lets you play with a mouse and keyboard. All of a sudden it becomes a good game again. It didn't need a complete overhaul, just a few tweaks to fix what was dragging it down.

On the other hand, games that age well are ones that had a unique concept and explored it fully and competently. No games after it were able to expand on the idea (read: plagiarize it shamelessly), so the original is still the best. Tetris is still a fun game to play, even though it is nearing 3 decades in age. It's just very expertly designed, without focusing on transient things like graphical fidelity or gimmicks like FMV.

I think the order you play a series in really matters. That's why I always recommend that people play games in release order. If you play Yakuza 1 first its a fun game, but if you start with the later games and go back to one its a barebones piece of shit.

This is why I've never revisited it. I remember the framerate making it nearly unplayabale at some points, and that was back before I'd bought my PC.
Don't get me wrong, I loved DeS when it first came out. My buddies and I all plat'd it in highschool and explored everything that game had to offer.
At least I can revisit Dark Souls on PC, I think it has held up pretty well.

This. Release order is the only way to tackle a series.

>play a game
>like it
>play the older games
>whine when it's mechanically weaker
What goes through these people's minds?

For some games, yes.
Diablo 2 is horrible dated, it aged like like a loli.

This so much. I'll never understand retards who make threads asking "Do I HAVE to play the first few games of this series?"

Like, unless the first few games are widely considered to be bad games why would you want to skip them anyway? Wouldn't you rather play them in order so that you could experience a greater number of good games?

>it aged like like a loli
So it aged from an unplayable, immature experience into a mature adult game?

I'll play devil's avocado here and say this isn't always entirely necessary, unless the games interlink story wise that much it shouldn't be considered a huge requirement

There's no reason to play FF1 if you want to try out FF7, and you don't HAVE to play Demon's Souls if you enjoyed Dark Souls 1/2/3

Demon's Souls is fucking awesome, it's equally as good as Dark Souls. But being on PS3 makes it such a chore to play. It's a real shame.

I remember before MGSV, it was like a year before it came out and people were making threads asking if they have to play all of the other games. Like why would you not just play all the other games anyway? You should play good games for their own sake, not as some kind of prerequisite.
I feel like these kinds of people probably instantly dismiss any game that isn't on a current gen console for being "old and boring" so they're probably young teenagers, that's the only justification I can think of at least.

Okay, sure, that holds up for a series without a continuing narrative. But even for the Demons Souls example that you raised, you really would get the most out of the series if you play them in release order.

Yeah, I think the worst examples for this are Metal Gear, Yakuza and Ace Attorney. All the games in each series are widely considered good so why would you want to skip some?

I think the people who ask that question probably aren't that interested in the series, but are instead interested in playing the newest game when it comes out so they can be part of the discussion. Kinda like keeping up with a fad.

No, not really. It can become comparatively worse though with games released later and therefore be made less appealing to some.
In my opinion, however, Demon's Souls is the best Souls game. The design of it appeals to me way more than the other games, and in general it felt the most focused and solid in regard to its design direction

What made Demon's Souls good is that it was the first Souls game. So there was no autistic build spreadsheets or a "meta" or min-maxing or anything of the sorts. Early after it's release was some of the best Souls PvP that will ever happen. It will never be that good again.

I've been gaming a long time and I can say that the first few weeks after release of DeS was some the most fun I've ever had in a game. So much funny and interesting antics going on with every invasion. Just dudes in whatever armor they could scrounge up with whatever weapon they thought was neat accidentally rolling off cliffs and into traps and shit. That was actually the last time I ever saw any sort of sword and board fights too before everything became giant anime sword forever.

Not saying DeS isn't a great game in itself but the early release multiplayer is what really made it shine.

I could see the argument that the level design is the best, but the boss battles and combat are the worst in the series by a large margin. I mean, its excusable because it was the 1st game, but the newer games have definitely surpassed it.

A game can come up with a bunch of new ideas and provide a novel experience which can make it
worth playing but it doesn't mean it's a good game. If a game doesn't hold up then it was never good.

Should I get ps3 cheap for this ?

Demon's Souls
>Dude invades
>immediately retreats into the level to set up an ambush
>Game of cat-and-mouse usually ends because of something in the level like a pit or trap

Later games
>Dude invades
>Bows like fag
>Muh honorable duel with my lightning whatever that I stayed at SL10 to invade you with.

Gonna have to disagree with you there, user.

For example, GTA3 was a good game on release. However, the same formula has been copied a billion times now to the point of over saturation. Anyone playing the game for the first time now would just find it to be kind of bland because the genre has developed so much since the game released. However, if someone who was had never played that genre played it, they would probably enjoy it.

>Can a game simply "stop" being good after a certain amount of time has passed,
Not quite so abruptly, but in time yes. Because gameplay and mechanics evolve slowly, and after a decade or 2 we look back and think "how the fuck did we accept that shit".

Forgot to say - it doesn't happen with every game of course. There are plenty of ancient games that are still fun as fuck. Also Demon's Souls is still a killer game.

no, if someone says it its more of a comment on the person themselves and how much un-userfriendliness they will allow themselves. its often used by casuals who cant make out old graphics or more likely they dont like having to actually learn a game

>Dude invades
>immediately retreats into the level to set up an ambush

That happened sometimes but not too frequently in my experience. Shrine of Storms invasions first week usually ended up as duels near the start point.

But yeah, invasions in places like Tower of Latria were pretty awful. I remember the first time I got invaded by some faggot with a scraping spear.

>a legitimate argument? Can a game simply "stop" being good after a certain amount of time has passed, or do people not respect the differences of past games?
After the Shadow Tactics demo, I installed Commandos 2 again. A game that I loved dearly.

And yes, it aged poorly. Maybe its due to ST bringing the mechanics up to speed, but the general clunkiness, the engine weirdness, the "suspension of disbelief" in terms of gameplay as its been often the case in that period(back then people didn't complain about mechanics not making much sense as they're doing now, for the obvious reason of missing alternatives who did it right) was just hard to stomach.

Its not bad, but its clearly outdated in terms of general gameflow.

Only time I can agree with "outdated" is when talking about the controls and interface in Ultima Underworld and System Shock 1.

Yes. For games that put graphics as their primary emphasis, for example. Or gameplay that is vastly surpassed.

If you disagree, I implore you to try to play PS1 FPS games or games like Soul Reaver.

Demon's souls on the other hand isn't outdated. It can be, but currently its similarity to DaS gives it a meaningful place if not as anything else than as a sort of level pack. With very solid design.

It just means they cant tolerate old graphics or complicated controls

system shock 1 is fine w/ enhanced edition u fuck

>However, if someone who was had never played that genre played it, they would probably enjoy it.

I'd expand that further. Even people that never played the genre may not enjoy it if they have played other games. The controls, voice acting, graphics and story did not age very well. Every game has these things; someone can tell the controls are terrible even if they only play stealth games.

Which is amazing because Vice City came out less than a year later and is a significant improvement. I replayed all the PS2 GTA games a few months back and GTA3 was the only one I couldn't enjoy. Vice City was still great; the missions were all part of a main plot instead of just being random tasks given by various bosses, it had some quality of life improvements like being able to bail out of a moving vehicle along with better vehicle controls overall, the world is a bit more colorful, etc. It still lacks the graphical fidelity of newer games, but it otherwise holds up pretty well.

DeS doesn't have major/notable frame rate issues outside of explosions/Dragon Breath.

t: replayed a week ago

Soul Reaver is amazing you absolute pleb.

Also, Rainbow Six on the PS1 is still great to this day. I played it for the first time in 2011 so you can't even say its nostalgia goggles talking.

Among other good ps3 exclusives.

The game didn't age poorly, they did

Games can absolutely age poorly. Demon's Souls is not one of them though, because DaS/Bloodborne aren't different enough to make DeS feel worse overall.

GTA3 on the other hand has aged pretty poorly just because of several design decisions making the game much more of a chore to play than even Vice City. That said, if it was your first open world crime game, it'd probably still feel great.

MG1/2/MGS1 are not enjoyable gameplay wise and all three are somewhat dissimilar to the later series gameplay.

>Demon's Souls
>Aged poorly
Fucking what? The only bad thing about that game is the ladder speed. Other than that it's fucking timeless.

I played Dark 1 and 2 first, when I went back to Demon's I thought that despite a lack of polish presumably from a smaller budget and a few odd design choices, it still holds up as a great game even next to the other Souls games.

I miss the parkour option that let you traverse small obstacles by holding down the run button (and from what I remember of the later games there's no level design that would have been too fucked up by leaving it in aside from maybe the rat pit in DS2 where there's a small wall blocking you from the exit hole in the floor which you have to beat the boss to get to), I definitely don't miss inventory load, it wouldn't be as bad if items you picked up went straight to your backup inventory or consumables and materials didn't add weight forcing you to stick with whatever equipment you chose to go with.

Also after DS1 and 2 got spell use right and then 3 fucked it up mp is a dumb mechanic, stocking up on multiples of the same spell to throw it fifty more times is a lot more fun.

Checkpoints only after bosses is good too, though I suppose the open world of later games dictate you need more rest spots (not giving you warping right off the bat might make your early levels stick out in my mind more). Would like to see From try the level based approach again, you can still make them all visible from each other since that's what everybody apparently loves about these games judging from all the reviews that went "you see that mountain YOU CAN CLIMB IT OMG"

Beaten it multiple times, still no clue what world tendency is or how to change it and as my last souls game to 100% just the thought of having to reload my game constantly is really turning me off the idea. Think I'll just leave this one incomplete so I'll keep returning to it (never touching 2 or 3 again)

MGS1 is a fucking incredible game. What is wrong with you? How much of a pleb can you possibly be? MG2 is flawed but pretty good. I'll give you MG1 though, it's not great.

But those games are all still great. I didn't even play them until long after they were released so it's not even nostalgia.

The NES ports were super shit though, but that's not even a case of the game aging poorly since they were shit on release.

no
"it aged poorly" is an argument used by people with no clue how video games work
gameplay does not age

MG1 and 2 are not that good but who the fuck doesn't like MGS1?

> Soul Reaver is amazing you absolute pleb.
Literally the only thing it has going for it this day is the story and athmosphere.

The combat is dull
The graphics aren't impressive, especially with the PS1 15 FPS and poor camera angles
The gameplay is mostly made up of block puzzles and combat

Not really if you played the other souls games first.
>No lunging
>No plunging
>30fps
>Basic as fuck boss battles with really bad AI

>a legitimate argument?
Yes.
>Can a game simply "stop" being good after a certain amount of time has passed
No.
>or do people not respect the differences of past games?
Yes.

/thread

I disagree there.
I think the DeS boss battles were generally more interesting to me than the majority of bosses in the later games. Most of the bosses in the later games are just basically straight-up combat, and seem almost arbitrary gameplay-wise. In DeS however, there was usually a gimmick to bosses, a gameplay element that was directly tied to the character of that boss. A lot of what I liked about Demon's Souls was how it constantly reinforced its character, and everything was implemented for its world, and not really for the player. This leads to "imbalances" and annoying things such as the scraping spear or the swamp and whatnot, but it was this conviction to its world that really made the game memorable for me, and I was happy they didn't "break character" just to make it less obtuse for the player. That's why I was disappointed, for example, with the removal of item burden. Removing that seemed like a cheap and untrue-to-the-world convenience for the player, and made exploration much less significant.

I don't like how linear and closed Dark Souls 3 is.

>Demon's Souls

Complete level 1, tackle the rest in any order you like

>Dark Souls

Ring two bells in any order you like and get to sen's fortress/anor londo, later get the four lord souls in any order you like and also the optional artorias of the abyss content

>Dark Souls 2

Get the four lord souls in any order you like, with many areas to explore in the beginning and eventually go to the castle. Talk to vendrick then get the three crowns in any order you like

>Dark Souls 3

Kill the lords of cinder in specific order, there is only one way to progress through the game save for a few optional areas - smoldering lake, painting and archdragon peak. If you kill the old woman, you get to fight the dancer which lets you go to the castle but the boss is locked until later in the game because fuck you.

>gameplay does not age
>something that can and is overhauled over time
>does not age
You're an idiot. Like really fucking stupid

> MGS1
> Great game
> Shallow stealth mechanics
> Shallow combat mechanics
> More than half the game is just bosses or unique situations like ambushes or chases
> Game has barely 4 hours of core gameplay

Also mate, MGS1 is one of the most sold and fanboyed PSX games. Calling me a pleb for not liking it is like calling someone a pleb for not liking Gears of War 3.

>30fps
Literally nothing wrong with that. Better than Blighttown's silky smooth -60

Shrine of storms was the unofficial duelling area.

Unless you played on pc or scholar of the first sin, they all have 30 fps with dips.

> Video games exist in vacuum rather than a context in which rankings are relative

>Plunging is used literally 4 times in Dark Souls and it's just a context-sensitive animation that makes you invincible rather than an actual gameplay mechanic.
>30 FPS only if you're being very generous, more like 25 with drops but that's just a problem with the PS3 not the actual game
>Most of the boss battles in DeS are based around puzzles rather than beating the AI, they're also much more varied than "big armor man with sword", "big demon with hammer", and "annoying as fuck teleporting spellcaster" repeated 5 times each game.

If you aren't enjoying it or having fun, then don't play it. It's really that simple

>mfw doing the Rotten four times then doing a bunch of fucking nothing until mandatory bosses
I really didn't like Dark Souls 2, but I'll also add from a neutral standpoint that the three crowns were all DLC, and DLC in all of these games generally can be done after a certain location is reached whenever - sort of not relevant in that aspect.

yes
3D games age poorly
look at any 3D game from the PS1 era

Nigger, you yourself said in your post that the gameplay in MGS1 is very similar to the rest of the franchise.

And how is boss battles taking up a lot of the game a bad thing? That's like the most fun part.

>You can't call me a pleb for disliking something popular
Your logic doesn't make any sense. You're still a pleb regardless of whether the game is popular or not. If anything, you're an even bigger pleb because everyone but you agrees that the game is good.

It's all relative. When GTA3 came out I thought I'd never get sick of playing it, but then sequels came with added features, and I looked upon 3 as lacking, because it didn't do what the other games did. Problem is not in the game, though, it's in my expectations. It's amazing how much is enjoyable when you accept the limitations of a given situation. Just like you're not going to feel the joy of success in life when you sit around complaining about what you don't have, or can't do instead of working with what you have; a game is not going to be enjoyable if you're only lamenting what it doesn't feature.

TL;DR: Your state of mind is the only thing that's changed.

It was planned content for the main game, DS2 had a chaotic development

They're puzzles, but they're shit puzzles. Killing the ancient dragon king or whatever his name was is about as fun as fighting the bed of chaos.

des was never good

sub 10 fps gameplay
5 second lag in the menus

>Your state of mind is the only thing that's changed.

This, it's not the game's fault that you don't enjoy it anymore.

But that doesn't change the fact that when you play the game, it's DLC that can be accessed after reaching a certain location at any point out of order

5th gen is easily the worst gen in this regard. Lots of wonky early 3D control setups that are downright horrible with modern standards.

The jump to 6th gen however is absolutely massive, from there on almost every game holds up well even today. There are some cases of sequels improving to concept so much that the original becomes kind of painful to play (Ratchet & Clank for example), but truly horrible controls are rare past that point.

Yes. Following games can improve and streamline a formula and the impressive technical features become less impressive and diminish what was unique about the original game.

There are lots of older games which have aged like milk.

(Nothing about Demon's Souls)

>There are some cases of sequels improving to concept so much that the original becomes kind of painful to play (Ratchet & Clank for example)
I played the PS3 remasters this year for the first time and much preferred the first game to the sequels.

The game doesnt change, but you do, and so do your expectations after seeing the series's evolution and getting used to all the things they improved upon

if you never played first wasteland, try to play it for 5 mins w/o getting bored to tears

Not the guy you're replying to, but why? I've never met anyone who liked the first game the best. The weapons in that game were so bland in comparison to the later titles.

>playing RE1 after getting used to RE3's quick turn

Playing Pokemon now without fast forward is nearly impossible because of how slow every single part of it is.

Dark Souls 1 servers down for anyone else today?

It's bullshit. If something's really good, it's good forever. If something stops being good, it means it never really was. Some people just won't understand it and will continue to buy Ubisoft or EA games instead of playing some golden era games.

No because it plays exactly the same as it did when it was new. A games mechanics don't age so much as get improved upon in the sequels and successors.

>golden era games.

Demons Souls is my favorite in the series, and still play occasionally, more so than the rest.

It's a valid argument, but not as often as some might tell you.
In the case of Demon's Souls, it's only barely changed transitioning into Dark Souls.
Outdated and poorly aged would be King's Field

Another good example would be pre-Gen 3 Monster Hunter

You didn't get the memo from /vr/? Golden era is whatever games were popular during your childhood ONLY if you are aged 30-40yrs old right now.

I use the Tomb Raider example when people discuss whether or not games "age".

Old Tomb Raider games to this day completely shit on every modern action/adventure game, including those that would not exist without TR, i.e. Uncharted. The core of the game is the same, but they are completely different mechanically to the point where they are basically different genres. That goes to show that devs and publishers have steered away from specific features that would make a modern game unappealing to the modern audience, for example because it allows for more fail states, making the game more difficult/frustrating.

But those features are still great for those who want them because they fulfill a certain purpose. In TR, it's the way that levels are designed, i.e. form IS the function. Levels look and feel like environments first and foremost, but traversing them is one big puzzle that feels organic because you have a wide range of movement options. In RE, for example, it's tank controls that, among other things, allow you to slowly backpedal while aiming in front of you, which is super powerful.

These games have extremely deliberate design that will never stop being great, no matter when you pick them up.

Souls series have started with DeS and never changed from the perspective of the core design philosophy, and mechanics are for all intents and purposes the same in all of those games. But they gradually got polished, which is why some people prefer the combat in DaS2 or Bloodborne. They made direct improvements to specific mechanics that carried over from game to game. That is what people mean when they say that later Souls games are DeS, but better.

I thought you were going to take that in the complete opposite direction. Tomb raider is a game that has aged like SHIT. The PS1 Tomb Raider games are near unplayable by modern standards. Just absolutely terrible.

A game ages poorly when it's main selling point and what it stood on originally was its novelty.

The biggest problem is the jumping is designed to work as if you moved on a grid but having full 8-way movement for lara just shatters this. Hope you learnt to slowly walk up to every ledge, tap a hop back and then do a running jump for basically every jump in the game because otherwise you WILL fail.

I disagree. It can ot hurt to play a game in the co text of its release and current gen, but it can be fine.

I only just played Silent Hill 3 last year on my PS2-san and now its one of my favorite vidya of all time. Im also currently playing Persona 4 for the first time ever, having played no SMT game ever and am super addicted.

As you might have guessed, Heather Mason and Chie Satanoka best tomboy girls.

Again that shit game series for filthy casuals

Shit taste

Think of it from a different perspective. Yes, it's necessary to walk to edges and plan ahead for certain jumps. Some would say that it makes for more immersive and physical gameplay. Same reason people like Souls games - when they succeed, they feel like they've earned it.

I would argue that GTAIII is the only one from the PS2 era that does hold up to this day. Vice City aged the worst in that they tried to make an expansive map but ended up with too many dead zones and barren areas. GTAIII accomplished what it was trying to be and still does. San Andreas has some of the same flaws Vice City does but is at least held up better with the variety in atmosphere.

I don't think Demon's Souls is outdated or aged at all. The stuff that's wrong/bad with it was noticeably bad/wrong when it was released. One generation ago isn't enough time for a game to have 'aged' in any significant way.

Not an age thing. Pokemon Sun and Moon are just as slow as Red and Blue, if not more so.