Video games can not age

insufferable fucking millenials

I agree with the OP completely.

If you can't enjoy old game now, chances are it wasn't good to begin with. You just were able to play it because you didn't know better and had no alternatives.

Actually good games can be played and enjoyed now perfectly fine despite their age. Try starting some Contra or Megaman Legends or even some fucking Super mario bros, they all are enjoyable now as they were back then.

Dated doesn't mean someone can't enjoy an old game, it means that you can see that some mechanics have been improved upon in newer games so when you go back to an older one you find it more "primitive" and lacking.

Hes right, only our perception and state of mind changes.
Silent movies can be great if done correctly, Black and White movies as well.
Some god tier podcasts out there and thats quite literally Radio.

Definitely. If you're wanting to get into silent films, I recommend Buster Keaton's The General and F.W. Murnau's Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans to start with. The latter film actually makes use of having no spoken dialog in very incredible way. That movie never could have been made into a "talkie". It captures thoughts and emotions in a very pure way that talking would only get in the way of.

Also this. The best place to start with Chaplin is either The Kid, The Gold Rush, or City Lights.

Everything fucking ages nigger. Everything gets older with time. Media doesn't somehow exist in a blackhole of time where it doesn't age with everything else.

"Dated" game does not mean bad game. It means some better methods of achieving something came afterwards. That's all.
I'm sorry you went down on this rage rampage and came out with this conclusion that comes from false premises that you put in this post. You probably felt very smart after typing that and putting that stupid mad men image there. But you're wrong, and your post is useless because it's based on a false premise.

Grand Theft Auto III is better than the first Grand Theft Auto in literally every possible way. Playing it is a far more enjoyable experience than playing the first one. My son is 8 years old and has never played a GTA game before. When he is 13 years older I will let him play Grand Theft Auto III. I will not try forcing him to play the first GTA because we both know it is just shit. I will show him a video of the first GTA as a lesson in video game history, but that's it. If he requests to play it of course I will let him, but he will want to skip straight to GTAIII instead just like everyone else because the first one is shit in comparison and isn't fun at all.

GTA3 is trash though.

Are you underage?

Holy shit

They're still good, I just don't like them

Imagine that

Media doesn't age. That's why anybody can just pick up MacBeth or Beowulf and understand completely what's going on.

You'tr misunderstand what I mean.
I quiet literally meant "media ages". As in "it gets older".
That doesn't mean it gets outdated, that means it progresses through time.

...

*You're misunderstanding

I know it's bait but do you really want to raise a weak willed little pussy?

Only because a game aged doesn't mean it's a bad game now if it used to be a good game before.

The easiest example are graphics. Games like Mario 64 had amazing graphics then, but although it still looks good now it doesn't look like modern video games, which mean it aged. It also apply, and most of the times does, to UI, for games such as fallout or even controls like the first Alone in the Dark.
They're all great games despite, they're just difficult to get into again thanks to the many changes done in games, such as more simple to use UI, improvement in graphics, etc.

Same with movies and books, where the use of slang tend to change, doesn't mean they're bad, just hard to get into or understand mostly for the use of dated words. It's the same principle as to why using memes is bad, because they age and in some years no one will understand them.

Don't be such a fag, OP, aged simple doesn't mean bad, although I agree that criticize something because "it aged" is retarded.

There were games treated as amazing because there wasn't anything quite like it. Or they were treated as perfect due to graphics. Or perhaps the clunky controls and interface of some old pc games. You're a fucking faggot, op.

no I was 16 when GTAIII was released and my parents never allowed me to play M rated games until I was 17 and could buy them myself. I tried the first GTA and it was shit.

I'll show him some good videos of GTA 1 and 2, like this one.

Why can't I compare an old game to a new game? If a game comes out and it's better than the older game, it's a better game. Simple as that

...

This is how you rise your kid to like streamers and youtubers instead of playing good games himself. Don't do that. You're the cancer.

Heres your reply

GTA2 was a great fun game, I don't see how your kid wouldn't enjoy it.

I already let him play some good old M rated games like Doom and Duke Nukem but GTA is a bit much for a preteen.

too late, thanks to his faggy retarded friends at school I already had to block his access to pewdiecuck, markikiker, some minecraft channels, and the entirety of twitch when he would binge watch them for hours instead of doing homework. CGR is a far better alternative.

Celebrities are cancer, game footage by itself isn't.

it was when it was released, but now it has aged and is complete shit compared to any 3D GTA game or GTA clone.

...

What was it that made you go on that retarded rant OP?

i bet you drink expensive wine because people say is better. if you dont drink the shitty one you cant apreciate the good

no, I have shown him good old 2D games dozens of times and he doesn't like any of them. he only likes 3D games. the oldest games he will play are N64 and PS1 games. the only 2D video game he's ever beat was the original Super Mario Bros just to prove he could, then he never wanted to play another 2D game again. he loves SM64, Spyro, original Doom, etc. but hates anything 2D.

one thing he and I can both agree on though is that the original GTA is shit.

...

...

Nigga, we like watching people do things. That's why we have TV

Information is distinct from physicality specifically in that it is not subject to passage of time.

>>>/cuckchan/

/thread

There are a lot of ways games age you fucking cunt.

Video games ultimately reliant on their groundbreaking graphics while having nothing worthwhile other than that leaves it to age like milk.
It could also be a game with gimmick that was hot at the time,but in hindsight or if played years later it would just be boring.
Other times games age due to having not clever Pop culture references,thus jokes that could have been funny at the time falling flat because the audience just can't "get the joke" without dissecting the joke due to not "being there.

Good art/games/movies,while not excelling outside of their niche or environment it was made in/for,they can usually be appreciated due to qualities that can be respected regardless of time frame or intention,like attention to detail,ingenuity in the face of difficulties or simply the excellence in it's execution.

I agree with this to an extent. My biggest example against it would be going back to DaS1 after 2/3, not having the ability to warp until after O&S make the early game feel more tedious than it did the first time you played it. For a more involved example, think of super castlevania IV, it has the whip that can attack in all 8 directions, and moving back to earlier games makes it feel more primitive than before.

there is a more nuanced idea of 'aging' than just blatantly stating that it cant happen.

geeez i wonder why your son hate the same things as you do….maybe is called parenthood?and we all reach a point where we get into stuff we dont like or viceversa to be close to the parents

you already rised a monster. you are a cancer and really hope he will grow up as a better man than you

But if that game had nothing but shiny graphics, it was by definition never a good game in the first place.
Define "gimmick", because the typical cuckchan definition that has carried over here is "feature I don't like :(".
You could say that about any joke or historical reference that the audience may or may not get.

Why use shortcuts if you can teleport everywhere? What's the point of world continuity if the player is just going to warp past everything after the first time? Why bother making a zone worth exploring if no-one will walk through it again other than to get to a merchant or two?

Warping from the start is inherently shit, and you have shit taste. It's the cancer which ruined map design in the subsequent Souls games.

No one in their right mind is saying that the actual video game itself has changed, ya dingus. When you use the fluid camera controls of today and go back to an early 3D game with camera controls that were decent to good at the time it feels like dogshit and takes a bit of getting used to. When someone says "This game is great, but it's aged poorly" they're not saying "Man 15-20 years ago this game is great but now it sucks dick." They're saying "This game is great but holy fuck this/these [insert mechanic(s)] has/have really improved over time, and replaying this game now is rather jarring/uncomfortable."
Saying it's aged is not a criticism of the game, or any media for that matter. Stop getting triggered by a simple word that is entirely independent of the quality of the game.

You're partially right about books and movies but video games are by definition a product of their times.
Consumer products are not art, fellate a shotun.

Books and movies are both consumer products

are you saying books and movies have the same artistic value as say a priceless sculpture or painting?

Then that game was never good to begin with, you just put up with it because you didn't know any better.

If you spend the first 10 years of your life eating marmite on toast, knowing nothing of other foods, I'm sure you'd enjoy it. After you've tasted other foods that don't taste like disgustingly salty yeast, that marmite is going to be extremely unappetizing.

To put it another way, if a game is only "good" in a vacuum, it's not actually good at all.

...

You…you're one patrician mother fucker, you know that?

But 'good' is entirely subjective anyway. When something is subjective, it depends on the views, opinions, and values of the observer. Since views, opinions, and values change over time among people, the definition of 'good' will also change. Taking your argument to the logical extreme, nothing in the world is 'good' because one day I will die and stop thinking that anything in the world is 'good', and therefore it will mean that nothing in the world was ever 'good'. When viewed from this perspective, you pose an interesting philosophical argument, but it's not good for anything except intellectual wankery.

chill the fuck out, ok bud? because if you look at the run down to blighttown and then back up you can pretty clearly see where im coming from.

You cant, thats why you have to go through them at all. there are even bonfires in 1 that arent warpable.

I fail to see how continuous world design is in any way related to this issue, are you saying that after you beat O&S you run all the way back to the harpies? I mean, you wouldnt want to miss all that level design.

Because you will be going through it the first time anyway?

My main gripe with the lack of early warping back to firelink from sens/fair lady/anor londo is NG+, going back through blighttown or wasting a few minutes running through sens and the chapel just gets tedious. It wouldnt really damage the game to have the ability to warp activated in NG+ from the start.

That's not an argument though, and that was literally nothing but, in your own words "intellectual wankery" and not at all relevant to what was discussed.

Hold up, games age, media ages, as there is over time effects that happen to physical media, hell even digital thanks to its physical storage, games over time erode, hell some GB games don't work now even if they've been properly cared for, soon will happen to CD games then DVD then Bluray then that data on your hardrive
Give it time you faggot

No.

Show me the 'good' particle. What is the physical property I can measure that makes something 'good'?

For the sake of argument, a game that just doesnt run as well as the same game on another format is objectively worse than the other. I would say what is good and what is bad can be measured to a degree, but not fully.

Going full reductio ad absurdum every time you see an argument that you're incapable of logically refuting is incredibly tiresome, user.

holy shit you have the worst opinion ever.
the wright brother airplane is shit because today we have a f35 that can brake the sound barrier

thats some really nhillist concept. than god only edgy teenager and hipster actually use that

I guess that argument entirely relies on what you consider 'shit'.

Shit for flying/transport/freight/efficiency by today's standards? absolutely, shit as a learning tool/piece of history? absolutely not.

Are sculptures and paintings consumer products, you dumb nigger?

That is not a unit of measurement anyone judges anything by for quality

If it's reductio ad absurdum you should easily work it out.The entire premise is going full retard,one difference and the argument goes down.

This brings the question:what does it mean for a game to "run" well?And still wouldn't be enough since it's the fault of the platform on which you are playing not intrinsic of the game.How do you measure good?Why is X game good and Y not?Is Z value better than P value?

Note i understand what you want to says,but in a way he is right.If we try to boiling down it would require a convention to pin down what makes a game good or what measurable data can be took to compare games.

OK, then if you are talking strictly about the actual capabilities as an aircraft compared to modern technology its completely terrible.

A stable framerate for the type of game that it is I suppose? 30fps for a grand strategy game for example isnt as big of an issue as say a competitive shooter like quake/ut/cs. ask any serious player of these games and they will all say that even 60fps is pretty much not playable at a high level.

Another way I suppose is if a game is just buggy or in some extreme cases unplayable.

tcrf.net/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(DOS,_1989)

This bug renders the game unbeatable, making it an inferior version to the NES version almost definitively.

but is the same way you use to judge the game

is just a retard way to compare something. because you never compare things in the past with the standard of today unless you want to show how we evolved AKA hygine in the 1900 and hygine today

you are bending the concept like a stripper to fit your idea of judgement. stop doing that

The Flyer and the Lightning II are not equivalent in function or purpose, but if you want to go down that path, the Flyer would indeed be shit at performing the functions of a multirole fightercraft :^)

Now, judging them for what they are, the Flyer, while being a functionally shitty aircraft, was extremely valuable to the iterative process of creating better aircraft.

You can say the same about games, where a really bad game may introduce a clever new mechanic that is then picked up by a different, better game in the future which makes good use of it. You can give the original game praise for introducing the mechanic, but again, that doesn't suddenly make it a good game.

I don't need to. He clearly doesn't give a fuck about discussing the topic at hand, which is why he opened with that fallacy. He just wants to win an argument over the internet. Tiresome niggers like that get filtered once they show their cards.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

check the id we are two different anons

as you can see, you are using the comparison with the TMNT of one version, with another version of the same year.
if we instead use your argument before it would be

Easy

if it takes two of the best consumer available graphics card to run your game at 1080@48fps then your game runs like dogshit

The rest of the measurement doesn't matter because anything that doesn't fall under dogshit could be considered good.

Irrelevant when talking about quality.

ehh, thats pretty much exactly how I would judge the quality of something, not necessarily as a product that

Not at all, the game can still be 'good', but one version can certainly be objectively better. I'm not trying to convince you that a game will be rendered absolutely undeniably bad because of a later release, but it can certainly show how you can definitively place one game (or a version of a game) above another.

Im just trying to show how a scale of objectivity might be obtained if you look at specific aspects.

I cant even remember what i was going to type here, fuck it.

That's a good starting point fro trying to pin down between a good and shit game.
Some game can still be good with a unstable framerate or with bugs,but it goes without saying,they would be better without them.

Another good point.Batman Arkham Knight or how the fuck is called it's a good example of it.

but you would still say that the game X was good because introduced the mechanic and was ground braking even if the rest was shit.
lets use the system of star wars the prequels, without counting on plebbit media memes
>had filled ground for new discovery about the universe jar jar a sith. palpatine was protecting against the invasion of the Zolg(?)
were and are badly done movie, but you need to give Cesar whats of Cesar and admit there was some effort in them

One more thing is something that is usually referred to as a great game can have serious performance issues, see DeS, some parts have downright horrible performance but the game seems to make up for it. But there is no doubt that the game would be objectively better if it ran at a solid 60 the whole way through.

but is impossible to have a objective scale.
no matter what you will always be using measurment for both things to be considerated and you remove things that cant be considerated on one of them
is like if you compare MGS1 with MGS4
you have to find a middle way to compare them, use the background of both and pick things from one game and not the other for the technologycal distance between them

I would say that game X was valuable to the process of creating good games, but that as far as gameplay is concerned, it's bad.

Star Wars is a great example of that. The movies were shit to watch, but they were extremely valuable in the creation of good media; books that are fun to read, and games that are fun to play.

As I place an extremely high value on performance in games like that, I would argue that those performance issues hamper gameplay to the point that they prevent DeS (and BB) from actually being great. Dialing back the graphics a few notches in order to reach a stable framerate would have done wonders for the gameplay without any real negative impact.

Video game isn't art OP, therefore it ages quite badly.

Just like this car, Ford Taurus. It's design was based on the new safety standard Ford had. When it first came out, it looked extremely futuristic, cutting edge, and sensational. But now, it looks like an ordinary old sedan.

Or a Boss 302 from 1970. It had an impressive acceleration and handling for that era. But these days, meh. V6 Mustang can probably smoke it.

The same applies to video game. It's heart and soul, the graphics and mechanics, are so much tied to technology. Sure, some things won't age, like graphic style, but it isn't the core of video game.

Bach will never age because music is abstract. It also relies on technical prowess, but the intuition you get from listening to Bach is much more heavily affected by the aesthetics and emotions it tries to convey. Impressionist music like Brad Fiedel's Terminator is really amateur and makes no sense when you're talking about technical structure, but it's still universally loved because of the amount of soul the composer put into his music.

Cinema, while is not as timeless as music, has the ability to create life from audiovisual experience. Cinema is able to create it's own reality, that might not be very convincing for your eyes, but convincing for your spirit. Zerkalo by Tarkovsky is the timeless introspective cinema.

Video game is like a toy. It could be fun a few decades ago, and can still be fun now or in the future, if it's lucky. Why? Because fun isn't an emotion, and fun is what video game craves for. Fun is never timeless. Spiritual experience on the other hand, will never be forgotten.

I agree with you for the most part

Wouldn't it be something if for just one day there weren't 10,000 bait threads?

original GTA was shit. GTA 1 was a fucking terrible game that literally sold based on shock value. GTA was abetter effort, but it was still shit and mechanically sucked ass.

GTA3 was some kind of miracle. I still don't know how they pulled it off.

Graphics, gameplay mechanics as applied to traditional games, sound, and level design require artists to make, the technical guys work in the background on script programming and the engine, just like any other media such as cinema, there needs technical backing as the canvas for the artists to work. How fucking come these things are suddenly NOT art when put together as a video game? Oh yeah, its because you have a severe mental defect

An architectural design does not age. An architectural design can not become "dated." An architectural design does not become altered through the passing of time.

Terms like "aged" and "dated" are simply terms used by people who have been conditioned by a post-stone age industry into being casual retards.

If an architectural design was good when it came out. It's a good design forever. It's the exact same architectural design. Nothing changed. And if you try comparing that architectural design to a design that came out AFTER, then that's YOUR fault, not the architectural design, for being retarded.

When you criticize an architectural design, you compare it to other architectural designs that came out at the same time, or before. NOT after. That's retarded. It's not the design being "dated," it's you being stupid and not knowing how to criticize architectural designs.

The Passion of Joan of Arc say high you pleb.

...

...

Yes I've been telling retards this for years. Games cannot fucking age. If you think a game is somehow worse now than they were ten years ago you are just fucking retarded.

The problem with your argument is false equivalence. If you went back and wrote down a book in a language that has only 30 words, would it ever reach the point of Shakespeare, or any of the "classics"?

Or if you went back, before anybody knew of anything to paint with, and nobody had ever had an idea to use a brush, or draw anything other than a stick figure, would that be equivalent to something from da Vinci or whatever painter you are fond of?

Of course not, that is fucking ridiculous. Although those aren't perfect analogies, the same idea applies. Technology and systems can hinder ability to make art, and technological advances, can make all things that came before it moot aside from historical perspective.

One day a VR plug that goes into the back of our brain might make all movies and video games obsolete. Sure, they might still be entertaining but would absolutely pale in comparison to what was coming out. If you enjoy the previous forms of things, that is fine, nobody is going to be bothered by that, but if all other people have their bar collectively raised because the art is progressed technologically by such a wide margin, well, too bad you shouldn't be crying about it.

Same idea, the real problem, in regards to video games is that people have had their bars raised in some aspects (graphics, skill-floor), and lowered in most others (gameplay, depth, skill-ceiling, meaningful decisions, performance, etc.), this is probably from the huge surge of casuals, as I am sure you realize.

If you want to make video games great again, you should be arguing that the reasons people like modern video games more is because of, fairly arbitrary, and shallow reasons, not some fallacious platform of, "it is just as good as when it came out guys!"

To expand, if you are dying of dehydration in a desert, and came across some pisswater that is filled with bugs, and smells a bit gross, you are still probably ecstatic. You are probably thinking about how fortunate you are and how great this water is.

Now let's say I fly you out of the desert and take you away to some mountain retreat. I sit you down and go out and get a glass of fresh spring water, clear as day, and pure as can be. I put it down on the table, and get you a glass of that old stale bug-ridden pisswater.

That pisswater was good then, and hasn't changed one bit. Are you going to complain about having to drink it now?

Nice projection.

Go watch a Buster Keaton film.

That's not entirely true, specially with stuff that's being reported as it happens or assumptions being made obsolete by scientific discoveries. That's why encyclopedias need to be updated and popular science articles get corrections and so on.
As with everything, generalizing is idiotic.

No, you idiot, he didn't say that old things get any worse. He said that standards for those things raise, so older and simpler things fail to meet those raised standards. Pong might have been an epitome of game design back in the 70s, but nowadays, it would barely pass as a mobile app. Likewise, a cave painting is not necessarily bad because it's old, but it's bad because our standards for paintings have risen significantly (although, postmodernist bullshit nowadays is most of the time worse than cave paintings).

I never said that old things become worse with time. I said our standards raise thus making things that were once good mediocre. The thing doesn't change, we do, and our capacity to create better nullifies the usefulness or creative expressiveness of things that came before.

As I said, I do not believe this is true for video games, in all regards. I don't think video games are objectively better than they were, yet.

I am only saying that is logic is inherently shit.

So basically what you're saying has nothing to do in this thread because he won't discuss the topic.

Then fine, you're falsely equating video games to art and how it limits people in various ways when video games are GAMES and should be equated to games or sports. Football hasn't become obsolete even though our ability to create new games has become broader as a result of technology and innovation for example. Laser tag didn't kill off ski shooting or bow and arrow displays.

And I can keep finding other stuff proving that you're just projecting with the "false equivalence" argument.

no, your point?

What? Games aging is related to the raised standards.

You are now equivocating a competitive sport with an entertainment medium.
Says who?

They're different things and serve a different purpose.

We are talking about the same game genre becoming more complex and advanced as technology improves. And I am NOT talking about graphics.

Once again, I am not saying that older video games are objectively worse than modern ones. I am saying that his logic is shit, because he is clearly forgetting that at a certain point technology and innovation can make all things that came before it moot.

You are strawmanning hard. I am not about to say that because da Vinci is older post-modernism art is therefore better. I am not about to say that because gothic architecture is older than brutalist architecture, gothic architecture is therefore worse. I am saying that his premise, and your premise of

Video games do not change, therefore they are always as good as when they came out, is inherently shit because it is forgetting that we change, and we define what is good or not good.

Street Fighter
Counter Strike
DotA2
etc.

All considered competitive sport.

Exactly my point.
And becoming more complex does not mean becoming more fun.

So you shouldn't be in this thread. For the second time.
Again projection.
Back to Holla Forums

They're not physical sport. You don't see a ball kicked by 22 people in any competitive videogame sport, and not because nobody wants it, but because nobody wants it without real people being involved.

But it can, though. More complex can also mean gameplay enhancements, quality of life improvements (like, say, framerate or resolution, or better input methods, like KB+M instead of just KB).

One of the means we determine what is good or not good is by comparing it to similar examples of things that we have access to. Once you reach that technological point that you go from the stick figure to the da Vinci, or the mud hut to the gothic cathedral, and you can literally best the previous thing on all fronts, I think it is pretty safe to say that it is inherently better, aside from maybe cost of production.

Still unable to address any actual criticisms, you are literally retarded and unable to actually address my arguments.

If you think I am a subjectivist you are a fucking idiot. You literally lack actual logical thinking skills, go back and address my points, coward.

And I hope to fuck you aren't an actual Holla Forumslack (your Holla Forums slight makes me think you are) because people like you give us all a bad name.

That doesn't make them less fun, less engaging or less subjective to innovation as already exemplified.
Another case of false equivalence. You really have nothing but fallacies going for you, do you?
Strawmanning.

You just can't stop can you?
Someone teach me the word for when people forcefully refuses to acknowledge another persons arguments like you just did. Just because you don't like my criticisms doesn't make them nonexistent.
He says after saying our subjective opinion determines what is good. Top kek. Fuck off Holla Forums.
Go jerk off to the 200 million or so your ideology has murdered so far.

I am saying that his premise, and your premise of

Video games do not change, therefore they are always as good as when they came out, is inherently shit because it is forgetting that we change, and we define what is good or not good and we do this by comparing it to similar things (ie: other games because you lack reading comprehension :^) ).

That is my point. Address it. This is no way that that is equivocating video games with art, and I thought that shitty point was for the other guy.

*There is no way

You're asking why football is not deprecated now that we have VIDYA GAEM tournaments. I answered why.

What kind of false equivalence are you fucking talking about? Football provides one type of entertainment, video games provide another type of entertainment. They are not interchangeable, and their fans are almost entirely non-overlapping. Meanwhile, games of the same genre that advance technologically and improve on gameplay can make previous installations obsolete. Do you even know what false equivalence is?

Do you even know what strawmanning is? Are you fucking braindead? Go fucking kill yourself, you argument-evading bitch.

Yes it does, it becomes 'dated'.

You cannot tell me that old claymation is of the same quality as modern claymation.
That's dated techniques being improved on. Those old movies would be better with the modern techniques, and the expectation of quality from modern claymation makes old claymation look cheap in comparison, even if it was the most realistic technique at the time.
You cannot tell me that a book with social commentary based off of its era is still as good when the social commentary no longer applies to the world.
You cannot tell me that the N64 had good controls that were better off with a rubber-band stick, instead of modern control sticks.

Your argument is that when something is created, it becomes locked in a permanent stasis where it will always be as good as it ever was. Except as the perspective of society changes the perception of the media changes with it. You sound like a teenager posting on an old music video saying 'This is better than anything my generation produces!'. Except then they go on to click onto three or four other equally great music videos spanning the last 30-40 years, and the meaning of that is lost. What might have been revolutionary, what might have been a song used to raise millions of dollars for charity back then, is now some teenagers easy listening track.

Or are you seriously going to tell me that the original Mortal Kombat is as big of a deal now as it was back when it was controversial? You can't make that argument. It doesn't work.

Ive been playing Resident Evil 2 recently, and have had no problem with the gameplay style or progression, even though it is often accused of aging like milk.

When classifying games as art or sport, is it safe to conclude somewhere in between? Sure, games can be played competitively, and have been since they've been popular. However, i couldnt see a game like RE2, System Shock, or Chibi-Robo be played competitively. Speedruns exist, sure, but that isnt competitive as much as it is a factor of memorizing paths and skill of said path's execution.

Keep ranting about your "muh subjectivism" Holla Forums I'm sure someday I will magically lose half my brain like you have.

Nope.
DEFINITELY NOPE.
Just because video games are not a direct replication of other games does not stop them from being games.
Seems like you don't.

You failed. Games are games.

TL;DR
"Because I can't explain what makes a good game, good games haven't been invented yet"

Coward

Who decides if a video game is good or not then?

I think your argument is less about games being "dated" but that it's just a buzzword and terrible excuse for lazy people to avoid playing the older games and form a proper opinion, which would significantly help in ensuring future installments wouldn't be dumbed down any further.

You lack reading comprehension. Please show me where I said, "Because I can't explain what makes a good game, good games haven't been invented yet". I don't believe that, nor am I arguing that point.

I didn't equate games to art. I equated them to media. Nice deflection of addressing any actual points in this shit thread.

Except some things do get dated, such an interface.

Imagine you could only enjoy the Louvre paintings in a candlelight because authenticity or someshit, or being forced to watch movies in a tiny screen. That's how it's like to enjoy the game with a dated interface. It might feel authentic, but it's uncomfortable, and while back in the days you could have found it okay because you weren't used to superior interfaces, nowadays it's a disgrace to lack quite some features.

FPSes may not experience much trouble with this, but TBSes, RPGs and in particular RTSes are very affected by the datedness of their interfrace designs.

Your original statement:

What was even the point of this statement?

I never said they aren't.

Except I never did that. You said "More complexity does not mean more fun", I said "Yes, it can be more fun, here are the reasons". What kind of false argument refutation are you even talking about here?

Is this some meme I don't know or are you just retar- OH WAIT you are retarded what kind of question is that. Anyway, nothing in my post indicates running away from anything, yet you've been running away all the time with false equivalence, ignoring criticisms and arguments, other fallacies and the excuse of "MUH SUBJECTIVISM".
That's like asking "who decides that murder is wrong?". Its easy to determine through the analyze of the mechanics whether a game is good or not. Just as we are able to determine whether murder is wrong by observing its effects.

Then fine, you're falsely equating video games to art and how it limits people in various ways when video games are GAMES and should be equated to games or sports. Football hasn't become obsolete even though our ability to create new games has become broader as a result of technology and innovation for example. Laser tag didn't kill off ski shooting or bow and arrow displays.
Pfft whatever. Even though anyone can see otherwise.
See
But it can, though. More complex can also mean gameplay enhancements, quality of life improvements (like, say, framerate or resolution, or better input methods, like KB+M instead of just KB).
Top fucking kek

Lets try again for "quality of life" purposes.
See
'Top fucking kek

You are a coward because you run from my arguments, you still haven't addressed the one I made very plain and simple for you multiple times (you just say muh subjectivism and b-but he is a lefty, which by the way I am not). The only points I am ignoring of yours are the secondary arguments you bring up to derail the primary argument which, to me, is debunking the logic of

Video games do not change therefore they are always as good as when they were made.

And who determines which mechanics in a game are good or not? Who determines the priority of what is most important in a video game? Is fun the most important aspect? Or is it challenge? Maybe replay-ability?

So once again, you are dodging the question.

Who decides if video games are good?

I don't even are about the art comparison. Videogames are entirely dependent on the humanity's advances in computer technology. The only way to equate that with art is developing better tools to paint with.
You do realize that football itself as a sport evolved quite significantly since its inception, right? Rules were put in place, team composition was defined, a better type of ball was developed. Equate football to earlier forms of football, not football to other unrelated games. Just like we equate modern, say, RTS, to an early RTS. Do not equate an old CRPG to a modern casual FPS, they are not even the same thing.
Again, entirely different thing. Laser tag is a team sport emulating a combat environment (simplified). Bow and arrow displays are competitions of skill in using said bow and arrow, and you certainly don't fucking shoot at other people like you do in laser tag, for good reason.

Do you also see dead people?

I see no problems there. Care to point out the strawman? Or are you saying technological improvements do not increase complexity?

Super Bowl has music, film trailers, creative advertisements, stadium architecture, mascots, cheerleader dance, and team uniform. Is Super Bowl art?

He said, after running from every argument the opposition sent him. Go away commie.
I literally just answered that. You want me to rephrase it? There is no "who" there is only objective analysis.

Ayy lmao
Of course you see no problems with a strawman fallacy. How could I be so silly?
You are actually retarded. The argument was being complex is not inherently more fun and you say its possible for something to be more fun if its more complex which is a strawman as nobody ever said it was impossible for something more complex to be fun. The argument was that complexity =/= fun. Not that complexity could never be fun. Therefore your retarded bullshit strawman is laughable at best.

Gr8 B8 OP you managed to spark a discussion that no one can ever agree on. No one will get anywhere because people decided where they stand on this issue long ago, and anything in here is just pissing in the wind.
Now then you want true art?
Check my Dubs

Oh I forgot that since you are a subjectivist you will never accept that objective analysis exists. Science is a matter of opinion and so are all natural laws.

What are some of the objective metrics to determine if a game is good or not?

Not only is that highly depending on the game and how and what its mechanics are, but also
LOL NOPE

Okay then, what are a handful of your favorite games? And how can we objectively analyze them to determine which is the objective best?

Walk me through the steps.

Classic subjectivist.

The lack of common sense in this thread boggles my fucking mind.

You can't go back to a game like Tenchu and praise it for its camera or draw distance, which at the time was perfectly acceptable (even more so if it was the first game ever conceived, it would be a masterpiece). Nowadays a game like that would be shit on because our standards have improved, therefore, one could say Tenchu aged poorly. That's all that word fucking means, you faggots looking into this as a form of brainwashing people to turn them into casuals or whatever are clinically retarded.

That statement had 3 points that had to be addressed separately. Do you disagree with any of what I wrote?

Fair point, simplicity can be fun, too. I admit that I fucked up on this particular point.

However, the inherent argument is whether or not games can become dated, and the standards for what is expected from a game can certainly affect the amount of fun that you can derive from it. Yes, many game classics are still as fun and great to play today as they were at the year they were released in, but you can't possibly argue they couldn't have been improved with more modern technology and knowledge.

Ok I guess I lose since you clearly know what I said better than I do.

Please forgive me of my shortcomings and help me understand.

What are a handful of your favorite games? And how can we objectively analyze them to determine which is the objective best?

Walk me through the steps. I want to be able to objectively analyze video games, just like you, user.

Earnestly, and genuinely, if I am misguided and wrong I want nothing more than to be proven such, so that I can better myself as a human being. Please help me understand.

You're right, but hey it's devolved into an dick waving competition about who can sound smarter.
So I'm gonna beseech you to check these digits what repeat

Please forgive me of my shortcomings and help me understand.

What are a handful of your favorite games? And how can we objectively analyze them to determine which is the objective best?

Walk me through the steps. I want to be able to objectively analyze video games, just like you, user.

Earnestly, and genuinely, if I am misguided and wrong I want nothing more than to be proven such, so that I can better myself as a human being. Please help me understand.

I'll have you fucking know I tried playing the original recently, and the tank controls have aged it far more than the graphics have. It's heart-breaking to me that the series never made it to the current generation, it's one of my earliest video game memories. From are just sitting on it while planning the next Dark Souls DLC. Acquire did nothing wrong.

Do you want me to rearrange it? Will that make it better?

I don't even are about the art comparison. Videogames are entirely dependent on the humanity's advances in computer technology. The only way to equate that with art is developing better tools to paint with. Football itself as a sport evolved quite significantly since its inception. Rules were put in place, team composition was defined, a better type of ball was developed. Equate football to earlier forms of football, not football to other unrelated games. Just like we equate modern, say, RTS, to an early RTS. Do not equate an old CRPG to a modern casual FPS, they are not even the same thing. Laser tag is a team sport emulating a combat environment (simplified). Bow and arrow displays are competitions of skill in using said bow and arrow, and you certainly don't fucking shoot at other people like you do in laser tag, for good reason.

Or are you still going to bitch about me addressing the 3 statements in the one line you wrote sequentially?

Standards have improved. Yeah, I know you're going to say that games today are shit, and in many ways you're right. But certain standards have undeniably improved, in particular controls.

Look at Etrian Odyssey for example. The first game didn't let you strafe. The sequel added this, and with every sequel the controls and general UI have become better and faster. Menus are faster and generally better designed, walking speed has been increased, the map drawing has been improved in many ways (more icons, more colors to differentiate different tiles, less restrictive memory (in the early games, there were floors that you couldn't fully map because of memory limitations)) and so on. Playing EO1 after playing the sequels is less enjoyable because it feels very slow. That is what it means when people say that a game has aged; standards have gone up.

You're pretending to be a superior intellectual, but in reality you're just a stupid fuck.

Actually games do age when a much better game comes and pushes the bar up, like for example if compared with Super mario 1 and super mario 3.

But given this context, games stopped aging around 2002 or so, so you're technically correct.

Also aged games are not necessarily bad games, just games that don't use the media as well as the ones that outdid em.

As long as you take the period of time in which it was released into account, yes you can. You can also analyze whether the game was created with this draw distance in mind or not. Its very easy to determine whether its a good game or not based on objective analysis no matter when it is.

Nobody is going to bother explaining the fundamental things of the universe with you here. Its far too long andand complicated, you have thousands of years of historic writings that can teach you what objectivism is. Go back to your commie hellhole Holla Forums

Ebin.

Like I could just dig into it hard and attack it on numerous terms like not addressing the point that the statement (singular) was brought up again or how you say only art can advance through time and games cannot, but honestly you're getting far beyond retarded and you've been completely incapable of addressing things when they don't fit into your extremely narrow worldview.

Still not addressing what I wrote, I should've expected that.

The point being that vidya is games and not art? yeah, I addressed it.

Are you a fucking idiot? I literally said that games advance with technology, and that art also advances with technology.

Well done, you've created a really nice ad-hominem to escape addressing any of what I wrote.

Ayy lmao

Well, I tried to make you see the fault in your logic and thereby improve yourself as a person, but you have attached your ego to your beliefs, instead of looking at objective logic (the irony), you have clung to your veil of ignorance to preserve your petty ego like a vain little child.

I hope you seriously think about arguments in the future, and try to think more critically, also try to catch yourself in fallacies, and try to spot your deflection techniques (you use them a lot), though you will probably ignore all this, I have a slight hope you will listen (you make all Holla Forumslacks look bad by arguing like this).

Also if you really look at the deeper implications of my argument you would realize I actually disagree with relativism (that is the proper term, not subjectivism).

Goodnight, and good riddance.

Yes its current year I should really be on the RIGHT SIDE of history like Marx argued. You're absolutely right. I should never have questioned communism.

You did not address football evolving. You did not address laser tag and bow and arrow sport being entirely different and incomparable. You did not address the fucking technological depenence of videogames. But yeah, keep ayy lmaoing, that sure is a nice argument.

k let me go over it to prove my point that you're beyond retarded
Football was an example of a sport that's been played for a long time with the same rules. Even though newer games exist. It being football has nothing to do with it. The fact that innovation and technology hasn't made the fun of football obsolete destroys you.
Besides the equivalent of these for videogames having been my exact point for a long time, they were only added to show I did not mean literally only football when I said football. And laser tag/bow an arrow comparison was a purely technological one that anyone not as petty and small minded as you would have noticed.
You ignore the fact that enjoyment (from example videogames) is not technologically dependable. Which was the main point of most of that post by providing examples of real life sports and games.

You are fucking retarded. You completely fail to see that every argument you made can be turned directly in your own face because of your small-minded pettiness. Ayy lmao. Goodbye.

but football hasn't been played with the same rules. There have been massive rule splits multiple times.
I mean hell look at baseball, you don't see the old rules used in their entirety anymore (you have parts used in cricket, but that's a whole other animal). Way back when about 90 years ago now, the way to get an out was to peg the runner with the ball which was made of hardened leather.
Shit evolves constantly and older versions get outdated, it's just how it works.

Lolno. Football changed over time, quite significantly. It's now an entirely different sport compared to what it was even 100 years ago.

Woah, quite a bit of stretch there. If it was purely technological, we would see laser tag shooting competitions at ranges like with bow and arrow. Which isn't the case, because they are different fucking game genres.
It's quite technologically dependable, at least depending on game genre. Many older games are literally more limiting and thus more short-lived than their modern equivalents. Galaga will get boring way faster than a modern shoot-em-up, and that's a fact. Inb4 muh subjectivism, weren't you arguing for objective standards not 5 minutes ago?

I sure love arguing against ad-hominems and non-arguments. Ayy lmao to you too.

Feel free to show me any rules that have changed the game into "some people kick a sperical object around and into a goal" we see today.

You're just like the other guy. Completely small minded and refusing to see the main point of the argument. The fact that you're even going so deep into football shows you've missed the entire point of the argument.

Ayy lmao

How can I focus on technology when shit you spew out of your ass has nothing to do with technology? Video games are dependent on technology because that's what you need to run them. Physical games for the most part aren't dependent on technology because they are played by humans in fucking real life, and if you haven't noticed, we haven't evolved physically significantly in the past few thousand years. Now go play football with an ox bladder if you don't think technology doesn't matter.

Ayy lmao.

To understand why you are wrong, you must realize you essentially said that timeless pieces don't exist. If nothing ages badly, then nothing ages well. Do you stand by that statement ?

if you think*

Completely ignoring my arguments again. Ayy lmao.

You have no arguments.

Ayy lmao.

...

Ayy lmao

Yes, as long as you don't compare things to others made in different years where the artists had access to different technologies, different schools of thought and the works of predecessors to build off of than media does not age.

Sadly we as a species do compare things.
We recognize patterns.
It is how we see where we have been and where we are going.
It allows us to strive toward originality in our creations by comparing our works to others.

Casual movie audiences are going to compare the WoW movie to Lord of the Rings, get ready for that shit.

The idea of "dated media" is most often either technology or the common modern idiosyncrasies that existed in that time.
Different public ideals at different times constrain artists.
It changes what they can or can not make when the system itself changes.
Things fall out of vogue as they say.
Popularity drives convention and popularity changes, people get sick of the same old thing after a while because they're not amnesiacs looking at everything in a vacuum and would be easier to manipulate if they did.
That sort of publishing also leads to crashes, the over-saturation of identical looking products.

Movies and game in particular subsist of regurgitating IPs as of late and every new one will be compared to those that came before them and others in the same genre.
Clear objective quality can be seen with the naked eye and far too often is a standard of quality not reached.
The only question is if the product is just derivative enough to dissuade the gross casual market?
That makes them try to change their tune just a little and hope the market forgets that misstep by next release.

Lastly people who plagiarize would never be criticized for being the unoriginal hacks that they are.

Your idea has many down sides and ignores human nature.

Might as well concede at this point, you haven't replied with anything above Holla Forums-tier shtiposting for the past 5 or so posts.

Ayy lmao

except the older versions have been made obsolete. While the core of "you kick object into area" exists, there are a ton of versions of football that flat out aren't played anymore. Like the mayan version (or aztec or some nonsense I forget which one) where they used a severed head and murdered each other to kick the ball.

Tech evolves and changes basic entertainment. Especially for video games which are based only in tech. Tank controls today aged fucking awfully and no one can defend how clunky and awful they feel to play. It's not even subjective at that point. No one can defend tank controls unless you're in a fucking tank. It was intended to be played with a Dpad and as such only had 4 inputs, Forward back and turn left/right. It was a limitation of the tech that has been phased out entirely.
I don't even care for you two dickwaving about subjectivism vs objectivity. Both of you have made statements that are completely wrong

Your argument doesn't exist though. You've stated that "tech doesn't change or obsolete older forms of entertainment" but it has on multiple occasions. Hell regulation balls, field size and all that other nonsense change.
And before you say "well that's only the official rulebook version" that's the only version that exists for Videogames you can't freeform play a video game, there are set parameters that determine what you can and can't do.

You haven't replied with anything above Holla Forums tier shitposting ever.

Ayy lmao

soccerballworld.com/History.htm

If you consider paragraph-long answers Holla Forums tier shitposting, yeah, except you also do that. I also don't ayy lmao involuntarily when I cannot reply to an argument.

AYY LMAO

So it hasn't changed.

And again focusing on football is still a fallacy as football was never my argument. Technology was.

Ayy lmao

Except that never happened. The aztec game was played with a rubber ball, and you'd hit it with your hip.

Someone hasn't read a line of what was posted.

Except it has changed. the original balls were made of pigs bladders and size and shape couldn't be regulated.
but 1855, Charles Goodyear designed and built the first vulcanized rubber soccer balls, which allowed size to be regulated.
And even more recently leather balls were phased out because they retained too much water which weighed down the ball.
Tech has changed football

my bad, point is no one plays that version and it's been phased out. It's more similar to modern day basketball anyways.

Sounds like "some people kick a spherical object around and into a goal" to me.

And again focusing on football is still a fallacy as football was never my argument. Technology was.

Except my point is that tech has changed football.
The core idea is the same yes, but the methods of doing it have changed.
Lets say… I don't know Tank controls, those have been completely removed and games with them feel Aged and clunky. It certainly doesn't kill the game, but it doesn't help it either because it's so outdated and even for the time they were universally disliked.

The equivalent of balance patches and minor gameplay adjustments that hasn't changed the core game being played in any meaningful manner.

There is inherently no difference between that and dota2.com/687

So basically we're back to false equivalence being created by you people. Football hasn't been rendered obsolete in any way so you argue that changing the ball a tiny bit completely obsoleted the old game of football.

Except older versions have been.
You're making purposefully downplaying the effect of tech on both football and video games.
Draw distance being increased, Z levels existing, fucking 3D didn't change games at all according to you? Remember Real Motion video? remember how bad those looked and played because they were trying to sell themselves on being "ahead of the aging curve"

Haha, you funny guy. Old games are WYSIWYG, no patches for you back then. Technology made it possible to have online patches.

LOL
Of course they didn't. Because by then the games from before that time had already been made. The games that were already made weren't impacted by this as the games that were already made didn't change themselves. Damn son are you nearly retarded?

Look at this retard and laugh.

You are actually denying the existence of online patches and their dependence for a developed online infrastructure?

Holy shit, we got someone from an alternate reality here.

Everyone in this thread is retarded.

I'm retarded, too.

So what you're saying that games have never suffered from poor tech?
Remember how color palette limitations were a thing? Remember how sprite limits were a thing which caused among other things, despawning enemies, despawning walls depending on the games? Remember how holding Up+Down actually breaks the code of older games because they couldn't handle two inverse inputs at once due to the tech?
Remember how tank controls are universally reviled and it's a complaint of literally almost everyone who's played games with it, and if removed there would be almost no problems.

Also where did I put aside anything you said, it's a major change to the game whenever something happens involving football, if anything you discarded what I said because it actually refuted your core "example"

The mud hut was always shit. Literally, it's made of shit.

That's the crux of his arguments.

Lets all laugh even harder.

Depends entirely on gameplay mechanics present in the individual game. If a game does not respect its own limitations then it becomes a worse game for it. That's why games usually have enemies not react to the player if they are outside the draw distance and so on. This is game mechanics 101. Are you really retarded? You really must be.
See
>There is inherently no difference between that and dota2.com/687
Of course I discarded your retarded bullshit, because its retarded and bullshit. The core game didn't change. The ball changed, but its still the same game being played. With the same objective.

And the game is better for it. Technology improved gameplay.

And limitations can not affect a gave negatively, hmm?

Let me guess, you're gonna mention mail-order diskettes as patches, or patching NES cartridges, amirite?

So what? That sounds pretty subjective to me, you can just decide what minor vs major changes are? And if you had you know actually read that link you'd realize that these so called "minor" rule changes caused massive changes. That line of logic means that all FPS games are the same because "the core idea hasn't changed"
Well we're not getting anywhere on that front because you're going to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with you as "minor" and "doesn't actually effect anything"

Games age when the quality of life deficits from their outdated tech outweigh the good of the game. Atari games suffer from this in spades, they weren't fantastic to start with, but they only got worse because the tech was so limited at the time, and while you can claim "well at the time they were good" they weren't though. There was a reason the video game crash happened and it wasn't because Atari games were good, they were mediocre and overpriced and on the whole didn't provide much entertainment value because the tech at the time was so pitiful. Even back in the day Atari games were criticized for looking worse than any other medium.

So you're going to keep dismissing my equivalent example. I accept your concession.
Game didn't change based on time alone. Therefore it didn't age.

Except it did, you can't claim objectivity if you're not even going to hold yourself to that standard user. You just decided something was minor as a subjective viewpoint. And yet you claim that you view all things in a vacuum?

So do you also think the world used to be in black and white?

Anyone who is not a retard and actually focuses can easily understand what is happening in shit like macbeth. The only hard part would be the vocabulary but you can easily fix that with 'easy' versions. (Explanations of terms on the side of/next to the text. These get passed around in high-schools and even niggers can fucking read it when using these.)

OP is right in that media does not change but that does not include us as a people. Our ideas of what is "good" change over time like everything else. This means that things like graphics are what people use to judge games now instead of gameplay.

As other people have said, you cannot compare something made in 2015 like the latest(?) Call of Duty to something like Doom (The original.) as the ideas of what is "good" were different when those games came out and those games followed current trends. This resulted in different products and it would be like comparing apples to oranges, or in the case of media, silent films to 'talkies'.

Pic related is a great example of what gaming has become. People dont get excited for fun games anymore and they just want the game with the most eye-candy, whether its the new CoD or the new Doom or in this video's case, gambling for virtual skins. I also wanted to add a file and this is the first one I saw.

Oh okay, so you're just not going to hold yourself to standards that you're putting out. You claim objectivity should be the standard however you fail to demonstrate any objectivity.
That's cool

When someone says something has aged your comparing it to the modern day equivalents. You're stating when you say such things that the outdated technical limitations detract from your enjoyment of an older title.
Video Games don't provide any timeless quality because they have comparatively low historical value because of the age of the medium, and are massively outdated by the current standard of tech. Also due to the nature of involvement with the medium. You do not directly influence the game, you simply steer the game in the direction you want it to go within the set programming. Interaction can be clunky or the fail to allow interaction in certain ways because we have a removed level of interaction with them.

Things that we have direct interaction with won't age as poorly I.E Sports.
Sports aren't an artform, it's entertainment with no pretenses of elevating itself to anything beyond, although you may think it was some minor form of theater with how much the players act on the field.

So do you also think the world used to be in black and white?

so you've completely run out of ideas on how your idea is even defensible aside from semantics. Cool I won

Why are you avoiding the question?

Have they? Keep in mind, we are the minority. The average person who plays video games will enjoy anything as long as it brings him no challenge. People who play Bethesda games will enjoy shit like Gone Home because it's easy.

And yet, the same average person would complain about even PS2 era graphics, nevermind the 8-bit era. The standards have raised, just in different fields for core gamers and casual gamers.

You were doing good until you tried to argue that you can't compare games from different time periods to each other. Why would I want to play Metroid or Metroid: Other M when Super Metroid exists? It doesn't matter what time period a game is from; if it's the better game, it's the game I want to play.

Ayy lmao

I talked to the other guy. What are you even talking about? Also, AoE2 vs AoE1, there's your gameplay improvement.

Everything is relative.
Media "aging" is just relative to modern games, however, as we're reaching closer and closer to almost perfect graphics, we're also able to see flaws in those that have preceded and we're less likely to view the game as flawless.
Exceptionally good games and developers create an aethetic within the hardware limitations that make it age-resistant.
Take Wind waker for example, the original wind waker has barely aged because the aethetic is visually interesting and could, in theory, be presented on any console (Post gamecube) and still look like it belongs there.
Final Fantasy 7 on the other hand, pushed for flashy graphics to grip the player on the new technology of the era, which, during release would be impressive, however, the new consoles completely towers over it.

But it's not just Graphics and Aethetics, gameplay can also age, take the original pokemon Red and Blue
Pokemon Red and Blue are, without a doubt, completely and utterly fucking broken, however, at the time, it was something unique and interesting, meaning we'd overlook the issues during that time. Now that we have the later games (regardless if you enjoy them or not), many of the mechanics and such introduced then makes Red and Blue even harder to play without getting bored or finding something that was not meant to be there.

Essentially the question you need to ask is "Would this game get away with being released today?"

Graphics have nothing to do with standards to a game. A game is determined by its gameplay.

And not to mention you're also wrong. Plenty of people play Minecraft, Undertale, Cave Story. With very limited graphical capability.

And lastly: No matter how much you raise the imaginary "standard" you think exists, but cannot in any way prove has been raised especially due to the aforementioned examples I posted. It does not stop the games from being as enjoyable as they were on release. Therefore the games cannot age.

You sound like such a fucking Holla Forumslack. I bet you flip out when you hear the word "subjective", too.

Average people place a far bigger weight on graphics than we do.
Cave Story is not a game that an average casual gamer would play on a couch with a controller. Same for Undertale. Minecraft has its biggest audience in the prepubescent and early pubescent demographic. NOTE: I do not dismiss them as good games, I am just saying that they are not the representation of the rest of the gaming industry. They are the outliers.
Exceptions do not disprove a rule. Outliers do not disprove a trend.
You are right. However, the minimum standards for enjoyment have been raised significantly since the inception of the video game industry. Back then, simple beeps and boops were good enough, because there was simply nothing better. Nowadays, it won't satisfy the average person even if they have never played a game before. Simply because we are surrounded by tech that is so far advanced beyond the point of said beeps and boops.
Dude, nobody says games literally age like spoilt food or something. Standards and expecations ARE raised, however. That is what constitutes as aging in this case - that is, a point where a game that was satisfactory in its time is no longer satisfactory in present time.

You say, yet everything points towards this not being the case at all.
Well you're just provably wrong here. Based on popularity of the games alone.
Do you want me to keep mentioning popular games with low graphical fidelity? Games like Braid? There's hundreds of them, maybe thousands and I just mentioned 3 (well 4). Hell I'll even mention the fucking Wii console itself and its popularity. You are just plain wrong. And its not technically me saying this. Its everyone playing video games on the entire planet saying it.
For you, not everyone else. And you have no proof that this imaginary standard even exists. What are you gonna do? Show a few screenshots from NeoGaf or something complaining about graphics? Forums are not the consensus. Sales make the consensus.

Prove that the raised standard exists first. Then talk. I've provided plenty evidence that it DOESN'T exist.

Says you, but not the majority of gaymers out there.

yes, Undertale is definitely played because of its gameplay

You literally posted 3 games, out of which 2 are niche, and one is considered a kid's game. "Go play your Nintendos" turned into "go play your Minecrafts".
Evidence for raised standards? Literally every modern marketing campaign for new games. Look at all this graphics, look at all these huge maps, look at these special effects and explosions! And before you dismiss those as marketing, do you know why it's marketed like that? Because it sells. Prettier stuff sells.
Did you forget the graphics wars between Nintendo and Sega? Did you forget the jump to 3D that awed everyone?

what were the standards for an AAA game in the 80s and what are those now ?
do you think any studio can launch a game with atari graphics, gameplay and sounds nowadays and still compete on equal standings against other studios AAA titles or it'll be considered and outlier piece of shit indie crap ?

do you think marvel could make the avenger movies nowadays all in black and white and with no dialogues or the standard to movies have raised ?

Underrated Post

4. All of them massively popular and not niche at all. The fact that they're as popular as they are prove that your imaginary standards does not exist.
Marketing does not indicate standards.
Anything with marketing sells. You must be new to the internet.
Did you forget you were arguing standards? Not advancement.

AAA didn't exist in the 80s.

Thank you!

"This game aged poorly" is slang for "Hurr oh god oh god I'm so retarded and can't make the effort to get used to how it plays oh god I'm so casual"

They don't prove shit. They are outliers.
No, but it is a large portion of what defines standards.
Bullshit. You can't market gameplay, story, or music nearly as successfully as pure graphical fidelity.
Again, advancement defined standards, and standards demanded advancement. It's a positive-feedback loop.

ok this guy is a moron, eat your own baits

also called you are a hipster faggot

Your argument is well put together and it sounds you're correct. I will rethink my definition of "aged."

And better my english. FUCK!
Sounds like*

Nope.
You're absolutely retarded and you definitely haven't played video games for very long when you say something so blatantly ignorant like this.

What the fuck are you talking about sugartits? Pong is maybe the easiest game to pick up and play in the history of forever.

I'm talking about games like Fallout 1/2 and Resident Evil 1-3, where you have to make a small effort to get used to how it plays, but the gameplay ultimately contributes to them actually being better.

Did I ever say I don't play today's games? No I didn't.

"Nope" is not a refutation. You're not selling me on your arguments here.
Prove me wrong. Also, show me your gamer card, with exact amount of hours you've played on every game you've owned so I can also judge you.

>When you criticize media, you compare it to other forms of media that came out at the same time, or before.

But this is still comparing new media to old media you fucking retard.

A game that's aged poorly is a game whose high points were only high points by virtue of being new: once the rest of the industry or at least genre has adopted them too, the original game must stand by more traditional lasting merits.

Fuck off. I'm so tired of "games can't age" autists. Also:

this is you

I don't understand the point in this discussion.

...

You're plain evidently wrong. If you want to argue that gravity pulls you towards the sky instead of the earth then I shouldn't bother listening.
History already proved you wrong. Here is one example. One out of thousands.

There is no reason for anyone to argue with you. You are simply wrong.

Nonsense. A game that's aged poorly means that it is in some way hard to get into now, as you are used to different standards, not that it necessarily isn't fun anymore.

Example: the first Avernum. The controls and UI seem fucking attrocious at first, the graphics are dogshit and don't even have something as basic as a walk animation, and you'll probably spend the first twenty minutes just trying to get used to getting from place A to place B, as the camer is permanently tilted, so 'down' actually means 'go to lower left'. If you grit your teeth and actually roll with it, you'll get used to all that stuff in a few hours and will get to enjoy a pretty fine game. Most people, however, won't have the patience to adapt, due to it seeming like utter dogshit the first time you boot it up. Thus, the game had aged poorly, as there presumably weren't such problems during the original release, but it doesn't mean that the game isn't enjoyable anymore

First GTA is unplayable to me, cars way to sensitive in wrong places and accelerates to fast and to make things worse, camera scale is tied down to speed, so it's pretty impossible to drive reliably, same goes to gta london. But the rest of the series is good except gta v which is such a waste of opportunity and budget. Can't even realize who casn complain about mgs v in the world, where gta v exist

No, I am not. People wanted better graphics, so they were marketed better graphics. All the console generations prove me right. NOTHING proves you right.

As for the trailer you posted:
You're not helping your argument. Can you find something more convincing?

Prove it wasn't the opposite.
HOLY SHIT.

So you started playing videogames post-2009. AT THE VERY LEAST.

Why should I prove a negative?

It doesn't.

Nice assumptions. Makes an ass out of you, that's for sure.

That's not what aging poorly means, m8.

Media does not age in the sense that people age, where it becomes less capable over time.
Instead, media ages when by simply observing it one can tell what time period it was made in.

Charlie Chaplin films, to give an example present in this thread, are still just as capable of entertaining now as they were in the early 20th century, but the sound and look of the films are distinctly those of movies made in that time period.

The same can be said of vidya, where DOOM (the old one, not the trash that is MOOM) is still just as capable of greatness as it was in the 80s, but it looks, sounds, and has mechanics that were typical of games made in the 80s.

Its not a negative. You claim something neutral and is asked to prove it wasn't the opposite way around. X influencing Y or Y influencing X is not a "negative". Marketing is telling people what they want and then giving it to them. So its more likely that you are the one with the negative statement and you are asked to prove a positive if you want to argue that its a non-neutral position.
Its not an assumption when you can't recognize Demon's Souls gameplay.

It's pre-rendered, you absolute chucklefuck. I despise pre-rendered trailers because they are all lies. I don't care how much you suck Miyazaki's dick.

You just keep proving that you've never seen Demon's Souls before.

that is exactly what it means m8

Avernum didn't age poorly, it was just a shitty remake of Exile in the first place.

...

she is going so fast that the hair isnt able to catch up

Buster Keaton > Charlie Chaplin

Media based on extremely contemporary humour or events certainly ages though. I doubt anyone born in the 20th century would truly be able to enjoy a satirical performance about Napoleon. Similarly, many years from now people will not be able to enjoy ebin maymays about president Obabo either.

Apart from that, decent vidya music or gameplay should remain unaffected by the passing of time.

I understand. Here's your (you)

bump

Mad men was irrelevant while it was still being made lel, only western-liberal relativists with their head firmly buried in their own dillapidated asshole think that show has any merit

if you enjoy it fine, i enjoy certain flavors of shit as well.

its still objectively shit and will not enter the greater work

you are sort of right.

if a game was good, its still exactly as good later and for the same reasons, however the bar may have been raised or lowered by games being consistently better or worse in a particular category.

doom is a great fucking game, but the bar has been raised in some very specific categories (like the ability to look up and down) and lowered in many others so we see it differently today.

you dont compare games to other games when they came out because that means the bar will fluctuate wildly depending on how good the industry is at the time, you should compare it to every game so far.

Sure, let me just pick up a Bible written in some dead ass language, that hasn't aged at all right? Or perhaps stand up comedy from the 1920's, I'm sure I'll understand every single reference of the epoch. Cock sucker.

better than the thread could ever be

...

Media evolves in the same way that language does, which means that older shit is harder to get a feel for because it obeyed different rules and adhered to different standards back then. Does it mean the work is bad? No, but bringing up the age of said work is important when talking about it and reviewing it, since people that aren't used to it will have a difficult time.

Of course, some media just becomes trash because the standard could have been set much higher since its release. Like the majority of atari games, or shit like cave paintings.

"lol it's bad [buzzword] [buzzword]"

Excellent post my friend.