Did MGS3 age well?

But PS3 controllers do have pressure sensitive buttons, or do you just have some cheap unofficial one?

Goldeneye's framerate and controls were also shit back then, most PC gamers knew it was trash

Unless you're a zoomer who thinks MGSV is the best because it plays like a third person shooter, yes.
I don't buy the "games don't age" bullshit though. Saying something has aged IS an overused and nonsense criticism from idiots but that doesn't mean games don't age at all and "aging" is not an inherently bad thing. It just means that it reflects the time it was released.

Attached: 1419847383517.gif (215x200, 450K)

you retards do know that we don't mean "age" in literal sense you dumb fucks?

MGSV is a good game though.

I had to buy a second hand one off some guy after my old one broke, turns out it was a knock-off chinkshit controller.

Yes. I played it for the first time probably 5~6 years ago, about a decade after release, it still became one of my favourite games.
Also this. Games don't age.
Occasionally good old games get surpassed by something newer that is even better, but even then the old games are still good on their own merits.

Considering most people refer to the Subsistence HD remake then no

The original camera was dogshit

>Subsistence HD remake
Retard
MGS2 and 3 Subsistence were both on PS2

It aged well in every regard except for the controls.

It's one of my favourite games, but the controls are outdated and hot garbage.

>games don't age
I hate zoomers who think old = bad too but don't tell me you actually believe this nonsense

The controls have a learning curve but they're perfect for the game.
If you're playing with the proper pressure sensitive controls that is, not the gutted 360 controls.

pc gamers were irrelevant then and now

Always shit.

That won't change with time then.

Games DO not age. MGS3 is the same game it was 20+ years ago.

YOU do age. But the game? No, it is the same.

"A aged game" is the zoomer synonym for "it was released before my time".

I played it for the first time this year along with the other MGS games. 3 was absolutely fantastic and definitely held up. Only one I would say aged somewhat poorly is MGS1. MGS1 controls like absolute ass, especially in the sections where you need to aim like sniper wolf the Hind and REX because the aiming was built for the d-pad.

A game doesn't age but can certainly become obsolete or less fun over time.

It has other problems too. There are just so many actions which could have been simplified that aren't for some bizarre reason:

Why does every gun in the game have a completely different control scheme?

Why don't all guns have the same controls when Splinter Cell standardised that shit back in 2002?

Why is the "slit throat" command mapped to the same button you grapple the enemy with?

Why even use the pressure sensitivity function when practically no other game in history uses it?

I could go on. I do like the peaking function though.

>Games don't age.
>In 10 years people will ask "Did MGS V age well" and it'll be a big fat no

Attached: 1531026777850.png (620x655, 521K)

>Why even use the pressure sensitivity function when practically no other game in history uses it?
mgs2 used it. it's a feature in ps2 controller so why not use it? the controls are precise and work flawlessly on ps2 with ps2 controller

>dude its so shit you have to wait for the helicopter to teleport you away.

>Third game plus expansion pack is pure kino.
What games other than Emerald and Subsistence do this?

Attached: Pokémon_Emerald-title.png (240x160, 15K)

>people STILL act like they don't know what people mean when they say this because they choose to be obtuse
Yes, games absolutely age because titles come out that makes previous games play disappointingly by comparison. Sequels will happen that fix all the clunkiness of their predecessors and make it nearly impossible to go back to games even if you loved them at the time. There is such a thing as not knowing any better affecting your enjoyment of games, retards. QoL exists for a reason.

quality of life sterilizes games and paves way for instant gratification. I do not enjoy games full of QoL.

still looks good to this day

Attached: 1524029688245.png (1175x720, 1.26M)

>previous games play disappointingly
No.
>make it nearly impossible to go back to games
No.
I played morrowind first time in 2015 and I'm at it right now with nearing 2000 hours clocked.
I can understand your viewpoint though because I assume your #1 viewpoint on games in technical quality and ergonomics.

Good games don't age, you mean.

That's just not true.
I enjoyed RE 1-3 greatly despite only ever playing them years after being a big fan of 4 and 5.
You can always go back and appreciate the old stuff. It's not inherrently worse. It's a product of it's time, call it dated if you want but it didn't age badly.

If they add QoL in a newer title it's because it was something they wanted changed. The "flaw" was acknowledged.
Then 20 years later you call it aged badly even though the flaw was always there. It just makes no sense.

I still have a hard on for classic PC FPS games.
While I won't say that Goldeneye still holds up. Especially seeing how Perfect Dark exists and made it obsolete.
I will state that back in the day Goldeneye had it's merits. Was a load of fun with friends. And probably still would be today! Assuming Perfect Dark didn't exist. Because why would you play Goldeneye when Perfect Dark exists?

perfect dark doesnt have oddjob

Fuck off zoomer .

Attached: 96773423535.jpg (239x300, 17K)

having to treat your wounds is kind of tedious but that is about all i can think of.