When some faggot says that video games don't age

>when some faggot says that video games don't age

>when some faggot thinks plastic and pixels can age

You're just don't care about video game design, otherwise you could see why people say that.

>when some faggot posts a cat in the op but doesn't continue to dump them in the thread

>"aged like milk"
>"unfriendly design"
>"outdated graphics"

>You're just
*You just

>he enjoys Sub-par Shart-io Shitxty-Snore

Nintendo 64 kids never grow up

The only 64 I give a shit about is here. Imagine being so fucking young and retarded you think the N64 is an old machine.

>hurrrr Atari 2600 games are perfectly playable now, I'll gladly play them over any game released in the last 3 years

people don't mean it literally

There's such a thing as bad design

Stop saying they do, and I'll stop saying they don't

This is true my dude.

But bad design is bad design. It would have been bad when it released. Games aren't good and then become bad, because they never change.

There IS such a thing as games that age better than others. I don't see why people refuse to see it. Alex Kidd in Miracle World and Super Mario Bros 3 were rivals around the same time. People loved both. Can anyone honestly come back and tell me that Alex Kidd aged anywhere near as good as Mario 3?

But people are less aware of design flaws until they're shown something better. Are you telling me that the grid based movement of the original Tomb Raider games would be viewed as acceptable today? If not then it is a design choice that has aged and is no longer palatable to modern audiences. Thus it has aged. Just like hair metal is viewed as cheesy now when once it was badass as fuck.

Hey hair metal is still cool

Hair metal is cool in the same way that Big Trouble in Little China is cool. It's fucking awesome but it's dated as fuck.

>play quake or doom
>more fluid gameplay than modern games

>play deus ex or system shock
>more gameplay variety than modern games

>play fallout or baldurs gate
>more choices and dialogue than modern games

I dont get it, I thought aging games were supposed to be worse.

>doom has more fluid gameplay than modern games

It's time to stop posting

cool story op

>fast movement
>minimalist controls move/shoot/interact/switch weapons is all you do
>gameplay is designed around moving around the map instead of cover shooter shit
Modern shooters are clunky as fuck in comparison to the fast simplicity of DOOM.

>But people are less aware of design flaws until they're shown something better.
More like, people are more aware that older games are based around slow burn fun instead of instant gratification when they play trashy modern games which are all about instant gratification.

It’s like starting to binge on sweets and saying that vegetables now taste stale and worthless even though that’s not true, your taste just need realignment.

And yes, I know I made a food analogy.

not a video game

Not an argument

you don't deserve one

Plastic and pixels literally age, though.

Some games age better than others, my man. It's not entirely on how old they are.

For example, A Link to the Past has aged like wine. Meanwhile, Ocarina of Time, a more recent title, has aged like milk.

They're basically the same game though

>Shitxty Snore
I'm having an awfully hard time pronouncing this.

>too inept for the control scheme so the game doesn't have the incredible smooth gameplay it's been known for for decades

I think he meant more like that the SNES 2D graphics are better to look at than the N64 3D ones (OoT was the best looking game at his time, but today it's just looks horrible, 3D games of the 90s look in general like shit) and that OoT just plays like a very early version of the lock on feature, which it basically is.

Yeah, except Ocarina of Time is worse in every department.

>I think he meant more like that the SNES 2D graphics are better to look at than the N64 3D ones
So it's basically just about the graphics? That's pretty shallow.

Games don't age, you wouldn't have liked whatever game you think "aged" badly even back when it first came out

games that aged well in terms of gameplay:

resident evil 3
final fantasy 8
resident evil 2
resident evil gamecube remake
pokemon
grand theft auto 4
star wars podracer
grand turismo series

>GameCube
>Old

>When some faggot says that games age becuse subjective matters.

No, the core gameplay also "aged".

>hear CT is masterpiece
>gameplay aged like milk
>endings range from look there's a frog jumping in the background to where the fuck did that from go?
I don't know what I expected.

The first Breath of Fire game certainly shows its age.

The menu is basic RPG maker tier, especially the inventory.

>Gameplay aged like milk

What

Compared to what? It's one of the best turn based rpgs

Grandia.

It's more like a well done modern game has a deeper and fuller flavour because of the extra years of experience that the older games don't have. It has to be used right though which is why you get a lot of modern games worse than their elders in certain aspects. Just because the devs didn't take heed of the lessons their forebearers learned.

I'm going to go play it and prove you wrong

>Slow burn fun

I don't think mechanics which simply work much better these days, especially because we have the technology to do better are "just instant gratification".

There are a few things that don't age in a good game, such as story and voice acting. We haven't made any huge technical leaps where "stories are written better" or "voices are recorded" better in a very long time. But when it comes to the actual gameplay, you bet your ass things can feel a lot clunky.

I was playing KOTOR 1 and 2 recently. The game is still fun, but it does feel very clunky, all the little things that we have gotten used to now, for example something as simple as holding down your mouse button and then moving the camera around. That works fixed on a X/Y axis and you can't just fully rotate it. I'm sure if that was changed to be a camera you can fully move around smoothly nobody would be complaining they are "pandering to the ADD audience", it'd just be an improvement. That's why I fully believe a lot of game deserve remasters. It's not even about the graphics, it's about all the little improvements you can do while keeping the rest of the game intact, bringing an older game that has something worthwhile to a new audience as well as giving the more die-hard fans a second chance to play it.

Videogames are tech, tech is iterative, you might as well say early cell phones haven't aged.

>Videogames are tech

All of the parts that make a video game are technologies that evolve every year. (Perhaps iterate is the better word as he said, since it's not always for the best)

Saying that "games don't age" is stupid, when I'm sure a lot of earlier games had grander ideas of what they'd have liked but were limited by the tech of the time.

Very few games actually age. Games who were fun a long time ago are still fun today, at worst you have to spend a little time getting used to them. The exception is games where it's basically a bad game that people enjoyed because it did something that at the time was novel and interesting. Sonic Adventure 1 comes to mind.

>All of the parts that make a video game are technologies that evolve every year.

Such as Music and artstyle.

Videogames don't age, people and their visions do giving the impression that tangible is abstract

Okay you know how some really old movies like Metropolis are shit now even though back then they were good?

Same shit with video games. Why can't you guys understand this?

...

Literally everything ages. just because you don't notice a difference doesn't mean it didn't age.

Yes, music and art style evolve every year, because of technology, you hack. Like every other facet of art and expression there are real limitations derived from the technological medium used. To say what you're saying would be like stating that cave drawings and sticks on rocks are not aged artforms.

>1) Metropolis was shit since always.
>2) Metropolis was good since always.

Same shit with video games. Why can't you guys understand this?

Games don't age, people do.

>music and art style evolve every year
>Like every other facet of art and expression there are real limitations
>Art
>Fueled by creativity
>Have limits.

Many wrong things here.

I'd say SA1 is a case of a game that's fundamentally good at its core but with a lot of rough edges which are indicative of the kind of experimentation inherent to the industry at the time. Nothing it does is actually bad, Tails and Knuckles are basically just extensions of Sonic's play, Amy is basically a hint at more platforming heavy sonic gameplay (with acrobatic jumps) with some fine tuning obviously needed to optimize what's there, gamma is a prelude to what was ultimately mastered within Eggman's cosmic wall in SA2, and big is a functional, if very simple, forced fishing minigame.

SA2 by contrast, is a case where the game is fundamentally good, but the kind of audience that would appreciate its advancements and changes from SA1 (a more arcade scoring focused crowd) are not inherent to modern gaming culture, or even the sonic fanbase to any meaningful degree. Thus, a lot of things which become noticeably smoother and way more satisfying when you understand how they work, come across as clunky and unsatisfying to the casual player since it's not what they've been specifically led to expect based upon prior experience or outside hype.

Essentially, games that are so old are cases wherein public opinion can very much lead to polarizing opinions due to the fact that explicitly they do not fit the expected pattern. Rather than being inherently good or bad.

>want to carve shit
>don't have the tools carve shit
Fug :DDDDDD Guess I'll just draw doodles

>Needing tech to carve

Casual retard

MINGE

Well, in the case of calarts, devolve is the more appropriate word.

I agree and disagree. Old games are still fun but the common trend is that the older they get, the more their flaws, many of them due to their age, begin to show. As these flaws become incresignly glaring over time it WILL detrement the experience as a whole and in some cases will drive the opinions that it's a bad game.

Take Demon's Souls for example. My all time favorite game that I will always enjoy playing has legitimate flaws that are a result of it's age. If I where to play Demon's Souls where it released today as the exact same game but with a better camera for example, then it would be an objectively better and funner game. I don't think DeS will ever be unfun to play, but as technology advances there are fun games out there that will lose their value. Not all, but some

>used my dick to carve a statue
>result is kinda okay, but not really as I envisioned it
>people still call it a masterpiece
>carving tools are invented
>other fag uses them to carve an amazing statue
>faggots pretend my statue and carving method isn't outdated shit

>Not making his own tool.

user I would call your cutting style a masterpiece in itself. The statue is just a souvenir.

>implying my dick isn't my tool
Thank you.

His argument is sound. There was a time in history when it was impossible to smoothly carve marble. There was a time when we had yet to invent certain pigments of paint, and a time when string instruments where not even a concept.

You're both right and wrong. Creativity is limitless within the medium used to express it, but that medium is not limitless in the advancement of creativity itself.

Just look at Link's pink hair compared to today. There was a time where the scope of your creative was indeed limited with what you wanted to incorperate. Technology had to advance first

All that is moot in relation to the argument because none if it implies that games can age or be considered too old. His argument is unsound and founded on nothing but his own misunderstanding of the English language.

>what is decay
>what is the second law of thermodynamics
>what is rot and rust

Are you retarded

>Not making himself a new more effective dick.

it's not an argument, it's an opinion. Facts aren't something you can't change.

When, in videogames, you hit a sort of wall in the tech department developing software that team had creative solutions.

Example; ML2 facial expresions.

Everyone go back and play Turok 2 on an original N64 with an N64 controller. Now tell me with a straight face that games can’t age like shit.

The specific argument that post adressed is that creativity is completely limitless. My argument is against specifically that, is not moot for if there is a limit to creative expression then there is a limit to expression and even development in videogames. If that is true and expression of creativity can develope, grow and expand over time then videogames can indeed age. That is my argument and it has yet to be argued against.

However, see

That is my argument that videogames can indeed age, again based on limitations present at the time. This would include creative limitations. Would creators be unable to creat their exact vision due to limitations of any sort, then they have created an inherently inferior product. As such, the more limited a creator was, the more the game shall age over time. Again, this will eventually degrade the quality of the game as a whole.

I got you covered, user.

The fact is that no matter how creative the work around, some things are simply impossible to pull off until technology allows you to do so.

>Cherrypicking

You're forgetting one important fact: Videogames are about execution of both; tech & creativity.

Consider the following; those 'limits' can also help the flow of development.

Imagine for a moment if Megaman games were graphically the same as the covers. The result would have been the same? I think not.

>games don't age
>except that one but that's cherrypicking

Meant to quote for the second one.

You do realize that it was exactly the same shit back when it came out of course... It didn't age.

Games can't age, period.

You can cherrypick whatever you want. He chose a shit one.