Games don't age. If they were fun to play in the past they're fun to play now...

Except the god awful platforming

Gameplay coventions is evolve and change you absolute chucklefuck. Sure you can enjoy it if you look through a lens of its time, but an older game that adheres to conventions we still have will be more enjoyable than dead mechanics.

Imagine being 40 and still on Yea Forums. YIKES

In the context of Pokemon, yes they age badly given the quality of life improvements and removal of mechanical jank that plagued earlier titles.

Platformings not bad at all stop bitching

Humans judge things relatively, by comparing them to other similar things. Because of that in some ways games do get worse over time as you start to compare them to newer games which have done things better. For example using your image it is hard to go back to Pokemon red and blue because they don't have type splits, abilities, and many other features.

Good old games age well. Bad old games age terribly, duh. Age of empires 2 will never die. On the contrary, you wouldn't touch some of the first call of dooties with a ten foot pole

the platforming parts weren't good then either

Technically true, though try playing old single player games and you will feel the difference evolved mechanics make. My recent example was finding my old Xbox and playing Halo. Still felt the same, but running was slow and enemies die way easier it feels. It wasn't as fun as it used to be.

>gaming conventions dont change over 16 years

Our perception of them may change, which in turn affects our enjoyment.
For better or for worse, mind you. I enjoy the raw, more personal way some games used to be made more than I used to.

makes me wonder if ill enjoy old games the same way years from now if/when virtual reality gaming becomes a thing

Standards change, and older games sometimes do not fit the standards of a modern audience.

I'm not sure if framerate would be considered a quality of life change, but it's hard to play OoT with its 12fps.

>chicken tendies dont age
>if they were tasty whn you were a kid then theyre tasty now
>you're not allowed to change your opinion on them, even though you've now experience countless other dishes that are directly superior to chicken tendies, and now expect out of your cuisine than chicken tendies provide

>food analogy
i know, fuck you

i probably could have made this about legos and it would be equally valid and condescending while avoiding the food analogy. oh well

At its time a game might have done something new or unique enough to make it stand out as particularly good or enjoyable. A later game may have used the idea for that feature and improved on it, making that older game look worse in comparison, especially if that feature begins to become a common standard.

GSC and HGSS having the level curve and ass Pokemon distribution to accommodate for KANTOOOOO has aged.

>GSC and HGSS having the level curve and ass Pokemon distribution
nice meme complaints retard

QoL features are a thing. So are standards.
Some old games are slow or tedious to play now.

Did you forget about hotel mario?

That's not true at all tho.

Super Mario World or SMB3 don't really "age" because they were made at the peak of 2D gaming and understanding of how to make a platformer.

But Goldeneye has aged because twin sticks are leagues better than tank controls.

I mean no the Game remains the same, but your preference should probably have evolved past whatever interested you in K-6

I remember at the time Lost Odyssey actually got criticism for not innovating and being too strictly classic with its gameplay.

Replaying it a decade later made me feel for the first time that I am playing a true gaming classic, perhaps even timeless, it's just as playable as it was 10 years ago, as its predecessors were 10 years before it.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 78K)

games do age. i think there have been lots of games that would be considered good at release because they created interesting concepts, but comparing them to games that refined the execution years later they would be considered inferior. if you played the more refined versions of the concept, you wouldn't really enjoy the original. that said, some games are timeless classics that got everything just right.

>legit complaints are MEMES
The absolute cope of Johtocucks.

I don't know. Every time I try replaying Pokemon Blue I get bored by the time you get to the old man teaching you how to catch Pokemon.

What will happen to this game. Will it be lost like the 360?

any gamepad shooter is day 1 obsolete when keyboard and mouse exist.

>and ass Pokemon distribution
Anyone who tries to use this as a legitimate critique shouldn't be taken seriously. It's effectively just code for "I'm too autistic to use gen 1 Pokemon because I'm an underagefag who started with gen 3 or above who thinks the region should be filled only with new pokemon because of patterns"

once you taste refined mechanics and technology, its hard to go back. Games that age well don't have this problem. Does that always mean they are bad and not worth playing? No. It just makes it a little more difficult to adjust to it.

Games don't change with age, but your tolerance for outdated gameplay changes when you experience better games.

This is why some games age so much better than others. If a game was good to start with it'll stay good, but ideally newer games are able to refine the formula of those older games and make something better. It often doesn't turn out that way which is why so many modern games suck, but sometimes all it takes for a game to feel antiquated is for one game to come out which simply does the same thing except better, smoother, or with more QOL features.

This doesn't just apply to gameplay of course. A game that had amazing graphics 20 years ago would get ridiculed if it came out today unless it's indie garbage and they did a retro look on purpose in which case everyone will suddenly praise it. Once upon a time playing at 12fps might have been acceptable, but since you're now used to better things it'll feel awful. The list can go on with things like having analog controls vs 8-direction D-Pads, save-anywhere vs some kind of checkpoint system (or save codes! remember those?), a proper soundtrack vs a composer doing his best to make shitty bleep bloops sound like music, etc. Entire genres that exist today simply wouldn't be possible without modern technology.

Not everything that's new is good, but progressing technology combined with the luxury of hindsight and experience allows games produced now to be just plain better than those produced 10, 20 or 30 years ago. The fact that so many developers are failing to actually deliver on that potential isn't proof that this isn't true, but rather that many developers are just shit.

I think it'll somewhat survive by being around from Xbox 360 to Xbox One and maybe its predecessor.

But I don't think Microsoft currently has staff to port it (appropriately) to PC anymore? What do Mistwalker even do?

Anyhow, if this game ever gets an HD re-release Microsoft will most definitely hire same clowns who ruined Bamham and Final Fantasy X (yes, it is actually same clowns)

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 57K)

>Anyone who tries to use this as a legitimate critique shouldn't be taken seriously
>all the good Johtomons are in Kanto
Nah shit is fucked faggot. Johto is cucked by Kanto.

>fuck you wanting to create a diverse team instead of using the same kanto pokemon
Lmao Johtofags are sad as fuck

Games can age. Sometimes time reveals that a game wasn't actually that good and only gained hype because of circumstance, but even good games can suffer. Controls can become relatively clunky over time due to new advances. What was once a clever way to work around technical limitations is no longer necessary and the weakness of a platform becomes apparent compared to new titles. A story that wrung true during the release period is no longer relevant to anybody because it was periodic. Gameplay mechanics that were novel for the time have since been beaten out by successors that learned from the original.
A lot of genres are worse than others about this but there are plenty of classics that are hard to play now for all they do right for little reason except time.

While that may be true in a sense. However ones taste in what they enjoy may change. Games that you may have found fun as a 10 year old my now be boring as a 20 year old.

This, only zoomers think that games age

I actually think Arcade games have aged very poorly. Back then I couldn't wait to waste my mom's money on X-men arcade, but it's actually literally unplayable.

Kys zoomer

Had a similar experience with FF9 recently. People bust a nut about it then I played it and besides from some interesting characters (with no resolution) and pretty pre rendered backgrounds it was a totally lackluster experience. I kept hearing "but it was good for its time!" like, ok. But it sucks to play now.

Attached: 9b-blackmage_village_3.jpg (900x584, 311K)

excluding the slow ass combat, the game is fantastic imo, had a really good time playing it.

sucks to have such shit taste eh user.

dude I went in very hyped and likely had too high expectations. The beginning was good, really shits the bed at the end though. Also the party constantly splitting up, Dagger not healing for a portion of it, Amarant basically not being in the game at all, no bueno. I liked a lot of other shit, especially the world and characters, but the combat was just so bad that it ruined it for me.

I should note, its not that its slow, its that its clunky and delayed. It somehow manages to feel like a "floaty" RPG. its like the fucking little big planet of turn based combat.

Attached: IMG_6669.jpg (1200x652, 177K)

It wasn't actually good for its time either.

>online-only/focused game
>game ages for long enough that there is no support for it
>becomes literally unplayable

I get a kick out of playing old arcade games all the time. I think that a lot of people just lack passion for games as a form of media.

Attached: 1541362075655.jpg (480x360, 18K)

This. It all honestly depends entirely on the genre and about the things that make a game good in the first place.
>Many 5th gen 3D platforming/action games were hit HARD by lack of good control standards and very janky tech behind them, it’s like they were this awkward step towards a new world where most of them were destined to fail, yet still provide an important step forward showing what works and what doesn’t. All more glory to games that SM64 that somehow got (nearly) all right despite being pioneers, too bad to the ones who didn’t.
>Also, some of the most pioneer-spirited games in some famous series just can’t hold up to later entries in the same series. For example, FF IV was kinda amazing in the sense how it had an actual story and a cast with some personality, but it’s hard to be impressed by it now when there are tons of JRPGs that do the same but better.
>Interestingly, the simplest games seem to survive best. For example, Doom should be fucking relic by now considering how hard FPS genre has been to older games, yet it still is fun due to being simple enough that there’s very little to age. Same applies to stuff like NES Marios and Mega Man games, who have held up a lot better than the similarly aged more ambitious games like OG Metroid. Literally nobody would call OG Metroid the best in series, but SMB3 still has a stake in its own series.
>Also, really unique games can also hold up despite there being smoother or seemingly more advanced competitors. For example, OG Xcom and Jagged Alliance 2 are old by now, but there’s really nothing better in those genres filling the same niche - new Xcom is good, but it’s also very different and scratches a different itch. These have aged badly in regards of UI, but the other elements still hold them up. Also, SWAT4 isn’t certainly the smoothest FPS out there, but really, as long as there’s no competition in its niche, nothing is going to age it in relative sense.

EXCEPTION

MMORPG

game gets updated and turn into shit

Example: TERA online

Yeah, previous versions are still VERY GOOD. How are you going to play it on a stable and populated server, though? Exactly. Checkmate, faggot

Better example: RuneScape

Attached: l6s7hCA.png (295x360, 200K)

Yeah that has nothing to do with the early 3D era aging extremely poorly or anything.

Higher standards from newer entries will absolutely make someone enjoy an older game less. Older games often don't have those QoL changes, either.

Attached: mfw_second_floor_basement.png (238x347, 100K)

I recently tried to replay Jak 1. Unresponsive commands, slow as fuck camera which can't be un-inverted and no sense of depth. Especially the camera makes platforming a nightmare because it's simply impossible to see the target of jumps in many cases. I can't understand how I was fine with that shit when I was a kid.
KH on the other hand is still perfectly fine.

This is a "solid" point.

Attached: 1554763825895.png (1280x720, 885K)

of course the gameplay doesn't change you dumb autist, nobody is questioning that
what changes is you, your expectations, what you like, what you hate
growing older means having a deeper understanding of the world (in general at least, tho I'm sure it's not true for some of you low IQs) and fundamentally alters the way you interact with the world, and with a video game as well

turn based combat like in pokemon for example became boring to me ten years ago, even though I spent years on these games I simply couldn't bring myself to go back to such a gameplay because of how many better and more fun games are out there

that's like saying pong is still fun after all these years, well, you don't see a lot of people still playing it now do you?

TLDR why would you bother with some shitty age old game mechanics when there's bound to be much better, more expanded upon and/or simply more fun games out there

Heh.

Attached: IM_HAVING_A_WHALE_OF_A_TIME.png (818x818, 141K)

I agree. I can go back and play older games with no issue.

>Spend the weekend with some friends
>Friend has Conkers Live & Reloaded on Xbox One
>"OH DUDES THIS GAME IS SO SICK WE USED TO PLAY IT ALL THE TIME AS A KID"
>Me: "Nah, it's shit now. It may have been fun back then but it feels awful to play now."
>"FUCK YOU THEN DON'T PLAY IT"
>Literally 5 minutes later
>"...you were right."
Games age like milk, especially in the N64/PS1 era.

Weird that you used Halo as an example. I replay the Halo trilogy yearly and am always surprised at how well Halo 1 and 2 still hold up.

hmm, alright, you're cool user, I kinda agree with you.

I remember loving the aesthetics and atmosphere of the game the most, but I'm a sucker for these things.

Considering how much fucking jank still gets pushed out it boggles my mind that people think games can age. A shitty game was shit then. Shitty controls were shit then. Shitty cameras were shit then. These things are still shit when they're shitty, and they still occasionally are. The difference is is that a lot of older games had issues, yes due to their age and lack of conventions and common-place solutions, but were good despite their flaws.

I personally despise the repeated levels of Halo 1, but yeah, it’s like magic for fresh the gameplay itself feels for a game that is now, what, 18 years old? Sure, I like 2 and 3 for adding more weapon and enemy variety, but the actual shooting and movement still feels just like it should.

I play plenty of old games, but games definitely can age, it's a matter of gameplay (and to a lesser extent story, aesthetics, music and whatever else) just being outdone by newer games as progress continues. A game like Wolfenstein 3D was hugely popular and critically lauded, but it's not really much fun to play today, but back when it was the only show in town and other games trying to copy it couldn't do it better it was probably way more fun to actually play since there was just nothing else to really compare to it. Games like Doom (and later Duke 3D) just did everything Wolfenstein 3D did but better, yet I would say that Doom (and Duke 3D) haven't really aged as much compared to Wolfenstein 3D, since their core design elements are so solid that nothing has really just completely outclassed them since. As much as I love Duke 3D it definitely has "aged" as the medium has progressed, if it was released as a brand new game today it wouldn't be as lauded as a great game, it would probably just go forgotten since it doesn't meet the expectations of the gaming audience of today, in fact Ion Maiden is analagous to a new Duke 3D game and it is only receiving recognition because it evokes something that is already recognised as great (not to say Ion Maiden is bad, it's roughly on par with Duke 3D itself and I'm looking forward to it).

Basically I'm saying games age in respect to the progress of videogames around them, the more newer and more complex videogames come out, the more they age.

Old games are just too slow. It takes too many button presses to do something simple like navigate a menu.

Jesus that remake face is terrible, looks like a doll instead of a real human bean.

Playing a later installment of a game that fixed bugs/issues from older games and added new mechanics, new content, and new features can really make going back to the older installments a chore. In a franchise, certain games are just complete upgrades over their predecessors. It's hard for me to go back and enjoy Battlefield 3 for example, because Battlefield 4 and 1 have completely spoiled me.