Untitled

.

Attached: 1577755976541.jpg (640x480, 63.04K)

relative vs absolute

i love reddit.

Attached: 1584130913513.jpg (960x960, 194.19K)

you aged poorly

Sometimes it's a hardware problem

Pixel games can be released today with 0 problems, but no 3D.

I don't think its fair to judge a game build around a single analog input when we live in a world that has made dual analogs the standard for the last 20 years. That's a case where I think "aged poorly" is perfectly applicable.

perspective shifts
In 1993 Doom had impressive 3D compared to Wolfenstein and people not having played any 3D games. But, the limited verticality is an annoyance today.
Conversely, Ice Climber was unremarkable due to its arcade sensibilities; however going through the NES library now, it is more enjoyable than most of the more ambitious and progressive games.

If the mechanic works than no matter how clunky it may be the thing still works.
You just don't have the patience to press different buttons.

Not really, everything from mechanics to controls got standardized now. In a platformer, when you press X you already expect your character to jump, in a shooter when you press R2 you expect the character to shoot, but if you go back and play a game that uses the face buttons to shoot you will immediately feel how old the game is, but thats a feeling that only appears with age.

based

I wonder why everyone gets autistic about an obvious figure of speech regarding games aging, but no one cares when you say your car engine died.

>SM64 always sucked
Sure. Never played it as a kid but I agree with you.

>But, the limited verticality is an annoyance today
Nah. The game was designed around it so it's never actually a problem. You're just spoiled.

This is like saying the Ford Model T was always a shit car. Things that were impressive at one point will become less impressive when compared against more modern offerings

>Pixel games
Yeah, but who plays those?
Mentally unstable people most likely.

replaying the first Witcher game after not playing it for 6 years and it's really not that bad

Bullshit

you are retarded

An RPG in the past that let you choose between a knight, thief, or wizard might have seemed impressive when it released but would seem shallow by todays standard, thats what you need to understand standards change as we experience new things.

Says the autist who can't understand that the games aging thing doesn't mean that they literally got worse.

fuck off /vr/

>Cars don't age poorly. If they're mechanically bad now, they were always bad.

Wow you really opened my eyes.
Nuclear reactors exist so water wheels were always dumb. What were they thinking making those stupid things? Should've just made nuclear reactors lol

Cars are functional objects while games are also partly creative endeavors that use the tech of the time to create something entertaining. So the standards are not the same because we're judging games on how well they entertain using the tech that they had not just purely getting from A to B.

That's party true but it omits the fact that a game that's mechanically bad can still be a good game, like Deus Ex.

Games can progress with time, research, experience, resources and hardware.

shut the fuck up

Go back
Jesus Christ, is some kind of raid going on right now? I keep seeing reddit shit all over the board

Imagine the stupid faggot that made that image haahahaha.

I'm saying you're retarded for comparing cars to videogames

This isn't a raid, it's a full-on emigration.

Oh, you can't argue against it so you're just going

>C-C-Car analogy!

Most of the times it's the graphics that "aged poorly".
Usually it's a code for "zoomers will pretend this game never existed"

no I actually agree with the point I'm just saying you could have done it less retardedly

Out of all the Reddit "mouthpiece for le unpopular opinion XD" formats, I hate this one the most.

Even though older games may have a creative spark in aesthetic or narrative that might've been more significant in the context of its time than a modern game, the truth that almost any game designer worth their salt knows is that game design is a rising tide that lifts all ships. From a purely experiential standpoint, mechanics, feel, presentation - all these things, on average, are simply better. These things do age, because we learn and grow and develop as a community. Basically, art forms/crafts are generally, in terms of pure craft (not necessarily creative content), better now then they ever have been.

Sneed

New games come out over time. Older games "age poorly" by being relatively worse than new games that do the same thing the old games did, but better.

why does it have to be one or the other

we don't say that guns age poorly, because we understand that new iterations are improvements upon old systems, systems that worked well among their contemporaries

games age, because we can identify techniques used in game making over time
sometimes they wind up being bad in comparison

>using that template
unironically go back

that point makes literally 0 sense

Can't say I agree. An absolutely enormous number of early 3D games are abysmal by today's standards in camera work, controls, etc.

>annoying/challenging=bad
life sytems are unically not bad and games like platformers are made with them in mind

I always assume that's what people mean when they say stuff like FF VII has aged poorly. I always mean mechanically though, I'm old enough to not be scared of bad graphics.

Attached: 1587062101943.jpg (640x480, 60.9K)

>uncentered text

Attached: 1wm14.png (313x268, 83.79K)

Newfags can't blankpost