Untitled

.

Attached: ocarina.png (611x478, 40K)

Shit shitpost

No one actually does this, right?

i do lol ^^

Literally the Star Wars Prequels

I always thought OoT was underwhelming but i'm not into Zelda in general. Coming off Mario 64, the game just felt painfully slow.

Plenty of things can age poorly. For gaming the only thing that matters is the controls don't.

I really don't get the "this game didn't age well" deal. Is it really that impossible to put yourself in the time period the game came out in? you already know it's old

>" It was never good take off the nostalgia goggles"
>Played he game for the first time this year

Attached: 1480360198058.jpg (605x703, 74K)

Normies value QoL tweaks over game design. To a degree where game's don't even need any kind of emphasis on thoughful design as long as it's "intuitive" to play.

I know this feel. I have a hard time going back to tank controls.

Its mostly based around QOL shit, and controls more than anything, but sometimes relates to story/tone.
For example the content of kotor1 has aged fairly poorly even when compared to kotor2. Classic mario games like World are just as good now as they were then

Theyre back though.

I hope this age thing is way more about better games coming out and thus inadvertently bumping a game down this list by virtue of existing.

For instance
>game 1 (100)
>game 2 (105)

10 years later
>game 6 (65)
>game 1 (100)
>game 5 (103)
>game 2 (105)
>game 3 (106)
>game 4 (140)

Played Shadow of the Colossus a year ago and I enjoyed it immensely

DOES YOUR FAVORITE GAME SUCK????? - A Video Essay
why doe people make this shit, surely it can't be fun telling people why something they like actually is the worst thing ever created, and I doubt you'd have fun writing and editing something that fucking long

Attached: DOESYOURFAVORITEGAMESUCK.png (1280x720, 469K)

Has happened too many times...
I still remember when Crysis was literally a game from the Gods,and now its just ok ,thats one of the most shocking examples desu

This but for Sonic Adventure 1 and 2.

Attached: Cutey Shadow.png (491x494, 209K)

But only 3/6 of SA1 and 1/3 of SA2 where good. The rest was thrash.

don't get me started

>GAME IS A MASTERPIECE AND HERE'S WHY
>HOW GAME MAKES YOU FEEL "insert emotion"
>GAME IS DISAPPOINTING AND HERE'S WHY
>HERE'S WHY

Attached: 1556928255693.png (325x300, 87K)

>thrash

Attached: Ayo.jpg (600x576, 22K)

Nah. 5/6 of SA1 was good and all of SA2 was kino. And before you bring out the nostalgia goggles, I 100% SA1 a week ago and I'm attempting all emblems for SA2.

Attached: Bullet Time Shadow.jpg (1282x541, 60K)

>5/6 of SA1 was good
Only the Sonic, Tails and Gamma stories are good. The rest is really annoying to go through
>all of SA2 was kino
I agree, but kino=/=fun

Even those parts are alright at best

GAMES DONT AGE

>thrash

>le typo

>le

>le

Attached: kot.jpg (1596x1600, 84K)

>Watches Barney the Dinosaur as an adult

I hated oot before it was cool

>I really don't get the "this game didn't age well" deal.
generally, it means that the game has archaic design choices that newer games improved upon, or it has flaws that people were more willing to overlook back then because of the limitations of the hardware.

Amy and Knuckles have very short levels and unique enough gameplay that it's not too bad to play through. The only really bad part about Amy is the 5 minute stage, but the other 2 are fine. In terms of story, Big is unironically very amusing. I like most of SA2's stages across all the different gameplay, only the last few levels have any real flaws for me. If you play SA2 with the expectation that "All I want to do is play Sonic", you're going to have a bad time. If you go in with the expectation of "I want a fun arcadey platformer", then SA2 is a lot of fun.