Game Aging

[db]

Hey, everyone. I've noticed a trend in the last few years of people talking about revered old video games but qualifying their statements by always saying, "By today's standards the game hasn't aged well." To everyone who feels the need to add this caveat I say, in the politest way possible, up your nose with a rubber hose! Do we really have to do that?! Aren't we just stating the obvious.? I mean, isn't it a given that as time goes on technology advances and more complexity is possible? Why hold the technological standard of one era up to a future one and point out the obvious shortcomings? A Tesla is very different than an old Corvette but I bet I have lots of fun driving both! I think we're capable of acknowledging the differences while still loving the thing that's more technologically limited for itself.

If games are aging so badly how does one explain the current rise in interest in retro gaming, game collecting and the popularity of youtube shows about such things? Could it be that the games were great in spite of, maybe even sometimes because of their technological limitations? A big part of the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album's legend is that, hey man, they did all that with only 4 tracks available to them and it still rivals a lot of stuff recorded in recent times with unlimited tracks. Honestly, for all it's simplicity, the first time I saw a Pong machine at our local pizzeria when I was about 8 or 9 I felt like the monkey men in Kubrick's 2001, seeing the monolith for the first time...and then my dad and I actually played it. That game will never not be great because of anything that came after.

[Transatlantic Foe]

For me, you have some games that were impressive at the time but struggle to hold up even a few years later. Key examples are console racing games, where once you go 3D you open up to better physics. Then take things like Mega Drive flight sims, which move at about 5 frames per second. They were mighty at the time but barely playable once you play something more advanced.

Graphics, well sprites age better than polygons because early 3D with its jaggy angles and plain/lower than low res textures, well it's often difficult to make out. But at the time, 3D was the hot new thing.

I don't buy aging game mechanics - bad is bad, unfair is unfair. People often equate retro to unfair but, because you have a short game it needs to last. So you get a lot of memorisation based gameplay. Not far from your Dark Souls.

[db]

I don't know. I can enjoy more modern racers (on of my favorite genres) like Burnout or Forza but I still really dig Virtua Racing too in all it's jaggy glory. There's just something they got right within the limits of that technology that still makes it fun to play. Of course the more modern game offers more but I can still appreciate the older one for what it is; and given a choice I won't always choose the "better", more modern game. However, I take your point, some attempts were just broken from the get go and we shouldn't be nostalgizing that. There were some great platformers but also a glut of mediocre to bad platformers too. The good ones used memorization patterns too but were able to present them in a way that kept it fresh and didn't make it seem like too much of a tedious mental chore. I just always want to acknowledge the creativity of people who got us to have fun is spite of the technological limitations they had to work with.

[ShadowAngel]

Dec 20, 2014 20:20:35 GMT db said:

Do we really have to do that?! Aren't we just stating the obvious.? I mean, isn't it a given that as time goes on technology advances and more complexity is possible?

No. Because there are older games that have never been matched in their quality - regardless of technology. Those games that were pure technology with little thoughts for gameplay and design of course look bad and it gets worse if those games actually pushed their respective system to the limits. Back then you might have thought that Tomb Raider on the Saturn (where it was first released) is awesome. It's Indiana Jones in 3D! With a Woman to play! You shoot animals and enemies! Wow! The low Frame-Rate was just an after thought, the clunky controls were OK since the game was just that impressive looking and all. Play it today though and you're quickly happy that Tomb Raider Anniversary exists.

With sports games and racing games it's simply that time marches on and what was seen as realistic 20 years ago isn't realistic at all today. Sports games with liceneses of course also suffer from either having no license or only limited licenses. I recently tried FIFA 96 on the PC. Back then the game was amazing, great graphics, great commentary, all those licensed teams and FMV's from the 94 World Cup. Today it's horrible. The controls are clunky, the AI is non-existant and compared to FIFA 14 it's a bad joke. On the other hand take International Superstar Soccer Deluxe: It has a ton of customization, isn't realistic at all and despite it being 2D with only one camera perspective, it's still a blast to play.
Same goes for racing games: Of course today with Forza you don't want to play Gran Turismo 1 on the Playstation since it's too limited in everything. There are old racing games though that never got a sequel or a game that came close to it. Like Fatal Racing which features the most insane tracks to race on, car combat and even Coop racing since every team has 2 drivers on the field and even the AI controlled member reacts to commands you send him. It's still a ton of fun to play today, because there was never anything that came close to this.

And another example that goes beyond all those "It aged badly" rule: The me the greatest Single Player First Person Shooter is Duke Nukem 3D which was released in 1996 and on archaic Engine that got their ass kicked a couple months later when Quake was released. Still, Quake was a worse shooter since from the gameplay you could tell that id Software made no further steps since Doom 1, it was still the same gameplay. Whereas Duke Nukem 3D has all those realistic enviroments, interactive objects (there's a pool table "Holy faeces, you can actually play it?!") and some of the best level design of all time (classic Levelord stuff) and to me, to this day, this experience was never outdone by any other FPS - some are fun, Serious Sam for a long time was the follow up to Duke but didn't reach the clever level design and was a lot more static, all those modern military shooters to me were boring and Duke Nukem Forever had the chance to bring back the glory of old days but Gearbox failed bit time because they suck.
And the game is still awesome. I've played the Megaton Edition multiple times with friends in Coop, people who never played Duke 3D before and they all said that it was awesome and the best FPS they played. Even though it's archaic and old and in a genre where graphics are usually the most important thing.

Another fine example is Sonic: With the expection of Generations, everything from the past 14 years that is Sonic sucked big time, it sometimes was so bad that it made look Sonic 3D Blast like a master piece.

Those games that were designed to be fun to play, with great level design, clever ideas and good controls withstand the test of time.
It's just those games that were created simply to showcase the abilities of a console that are seen as crap later on. Golden Axe on the Master System looks impressive for it's time, when you think about the limitations of the Master System but is it fun to play? Back in the day you played it and might even think it's a great game but today? On the other hand you have something like Land of Illusion or Alex Kidd in Miracle World that isn't all that great looking but the gameplay still is a lot of fun.

Dec 20, 2014 20:20:35 GMT db said:

If games are aging so badly how does one explain the current rise in interest in retro gaming, game collecting and the popularity of youtube shows about such things?

Because those people either want to relieve their youth if they're old enough (and have stopped gaming in between and now are back) or just want games that don't waste their first 40 minutes on shitty cutscenes and annoying tutorials for retards.
It's comparable to what has happened here in Germany around 2000: We have a thing called "Hörspiele", comparable to Radio Plays just sold on cassettes/cds. They were all the rage to kids and young adults in the 80's but went into a slump in the 90's. Around 2000 it re-emerged and suddenly people 30+ years old started to listen to those plays they heard in their childhood. New plays emerged, others were resurrected and to this day the selling numbers are through the roof. It started as a fad but showed lonevity. Same goes for all those so called "retro" games: At first i thought it was a fad but it's still going on and it's mostly bought by those people who want to relieve their youth with games that are just like back then
I'm one of them, i have a lot more fun with those "retro" games than with modern stuff that tries to be realistic and fancy. I bought Muri on Steam for 2€ and i loved it from the very beginning, it emulates the old Apogee Jump n' Runs from the early 90's, including a fake Dos environment and 16 color EGA graphics and speaker sound, it's great.

[db]

I don't know SA. It seems like it's not just old guys like me trying to relive their youth but an awful lot of younger folk (yourself included) seem to be into this retro revival too. Why else are you here? While we can expect greater levels of realism in the future I think that's missing the point. Realism was often the aim of painting until the camera came along and then why bother. Not that it's not an accomplishment to achieve that in painting. It is, but it will never equal in realism what the camera does. While it may have seemed like an infringement to many artist of the time others found it liberated their imagination to become part of their painting now. At some point in the future it will stop being about an approximation of reality because we'll already be there. Then what will games be about for you? Well, they better still be creative and fun if you're still going to want to play them!

[Centrale]

A contemporary developer (I'm thinking it might have been David Jaffe) remarked that he personally was impressed and in awe of the challenge of designing fun games that take place solely on one screen, like most of the first decade of commercial video games. Older gamers have the benefit of having seen most, if not all, of the evolution of this artform. I was there when Defender blew us all away by the fact that the screen scrolled - the game actually took place in a space larger than its own display.

Every facet of games now that is commonplace was at one time a major breakthrough. So, although I would say that in many cases, it's true that some games don't 'hold up' as fun or high quality experiences, each one is worthy of examining both in the present and in its historical context. Turbo is still a fun game even though it lacks the realistic dynamic weather of Drive Club. Although there are many who would say it doesn't 'hold up,' simply due to having been overshadowed by technical innovations, I think it continues to succeed in its own aims (except for separating you from your quarters, because we're probably all just playing it emulated) - a quick burst of intense gameplay. Joust holds up as a great game even though Panzer Dragoon Orta could be said to blow it away with graphical fidelity.

In the end, though, it's all just a matter of opinion. You just have to gauge for yourself whether you think someone's opinion is an informed one, or frankly an ignorant one.

[db]

Well, the only thing informing me IS my experience of games in this regard. I just think it's dumb to keep qualifying one's love and enjoyment of a game by reminding people that it's old and more advanced stuff has happened since. We get it! Now get on with the review!

Beside, like you point out, sometimes the limitations are often the source of a game's unique creativity. Sometimes I might be more in a mood to play Joust for awhile. Other times I might want a deeper Panzer Dragoon experience. One doesn't cancel the other one out is my larger point. Classics become classics for a reason: because, in spite of being of a particular time, they transcend time in some sense.

[ShadowAngel]

Dec 21, 2014 1:34:38 GMT db said:

Why else are you here?

The same reason i stated: I sold a lot of my old games off in the late 90's (and my master system died on me which is crazy since in later years i ressurected to MS1's from their death but that one was just...dead) and then came the time i missed the master system, that was around 2000 i think. Long story short, i bought a master system from ebay, i still had a couple games i cherished the most (like castle of illusion, lucky dime caper, sonic 1, wonder boy in monster land) and it was during that time i found this forum, actuall the original website from shinobi man and i was there, then it went dead, sinistral created another forum i was on and in 2003 it was back here (i can't even remember the original story, only that we were once in sinistral's forum and we tried to turn welcome to the jungle from guns n' roses into a master system forum...it involved the smurfs )
Anyway: Same reason i stated: You grow up with something, you "outlive" it, you want it back, some people of course never have that "problem", they have the love for all time.

Dec 21, 2014 1:34:38 GMT db said:

While we can expect greater levels of realism in the future

Games will never be realistic and that's the point. No game so far has been realistic. Sports games can't capture reality, the situations that happen there, it can't even simulate players being "cold" (NHL 94 on the Mega Drive tried to emulate it but it hadn't a season mode so it was only game to game), games can't simulate a team simply "fail" for no real reason at all (like at the moment here in Germany with Borussia Dortmund, they have the second most expensive roster, kick ass in the Champions League but in the national league are second to last) or racing games simulating cars simply being to bad like in this Formula 1 Season the Red Bull Team or at the same time a driver going beyond expectations on an underpowered car. Games won't achive this for a long time, especially with licenses, developers are bound to do certain things, otherwise they run into problems.
It will take a long time also before the artificial intelligence is good enough to be life-like and realistic.

[Deleted]

I was thinking for one hour if I post something here or not. But this..

Dec 21, 2014 1:34:38 GMT db said:

It seems like it's not just old guys like me trying to relive their youth but an awful lot of younger folk (yourself included) seem to be into this retro revival too.

..made me extremely rage. And I mean, extremely. This is not only insulting, it´s simply disgusting dude.

Because it´s not against her only, but against me and many others here. I have my Master System and Super Nintendo since my childhood, and when others played games on their brand new PS1, I still played games on my SMS and SNES. And I still do now. So there was NEVER a REVIVAL for me. You need to read ShadowAngel´s post again, carefully.

I never cared about graphics that much, gameplay was important for me all the time because gameplay is decisive if a game is fun or not. If it had good graphics, it was even better, but still..
I have a Wii at home and I enjoy some games on it as well as I enjoy some 8-bit games. It´s depending from the game.

Dec 21, 2014 1:34:38 GMT db said:

Why else are you here?

To share a passion with fellows. You registered here at the beginning of this month to tell us that we are awful, knowing that many of the ´younger´ people here are registered and active since 2003? Then you should leave this place in my opinion.

[db]

Yeah, but you still find these games fun, in spite of there being more advanced options now. Why play these instead of them? Nostalgia only takes you so far in that regard but eventually people get bored of that too. At some point you have to admit it's because the games are good in spite of there being more advanced options.

Have you tried the oculus yet? I haven't but early reports suggest it will take gaming to another level of realism. I certainly found Tekken to be a more realistic fighter than, say, Atari Boxing. Eventually, perhaps not in our lifetime (but maybe) we will have a more holodeck-like experience available to us and the level of realism will be hard to distinguish from actual reality; but to get lost in a discussion of a games relative level of technology is still missing the point. In order for games to be fun (and be considered games) they'll always need a creative intelligence behind them no matter what the level of realism and technology. I'd say that has to be a good part of why anyone would still be playing SMS games in today's age, aside from any nostalgic reason, which, as I said, will only take you so far in your love for a thing. The thing itself still has to ring true to you aside from any ties to memories of your earlier life.

[Centrale]

Dec 21, 2014 2:27:55 GMT db said:

Well, the only thing informing me IS my experience of games in this regard. I just think it's dumb to keep qualifying one's love and enjoyment of a game by reminding people that it's old and more advanced stuff has happened since. We get it! Now get on with the review!

Yeah, I mean I haven't seen the videos that you're referring to; it might be an instance in which they expect their target audience, or some segment of their audience, to be young people who are automatically turned off by the limitations of older games. There are a series of videos called "Teens React to..." and they'll feature 8-bit games and computers of the 80s and such. I don't even want to watch them because the very concept of the video is to get a funny reaction from these youth who have not been provided any context for what they are interacting with, and have no conception of how we got from there to where we are now.

Personally as a teen I was only slightly interested in the games and toys of the 1950s, which (much to my fascination) is kind of where we're at now with our games of the 80s. But I was probably more open-minded in learning about them than many of my peers, who would have been more instantly dismissive. The problem is when some kids these days say all old games are worthless, and with no historical knowledge, they must wonder why the game designers of the 1970s and 80s didn't immediately start making Call of Duty in its contemporary form.

[db]

Dec 21, 2014 2:52:41 GMT @gordman said:

I was thinking for one hour if I post something here or not. But this..

Dec 21, 2014 1:34:38 GMT db said:

It seems like it's not just old guys like me trying to relive their youth but an awful lot of younger folk (yourself included) seem to be into this retro revival too.

..made me extremely rage. And I mean, extremely. This is not only insulting, it´s simply disgusting dude.

Because it´s not against her only, but against me and many others here. I have my Master System and Super Nintendo since my childhood, and when others played games on their brand new PS1, I still played games on my SMS and SNES. And I still do now. So there was NEVER a REVIVAL for me. You need to read ShadowAngel´s post again, carefully.

I never cared about graphics that much, gameplay was important for me all the time because gameplay is decisive if a game is fun or not. If it had good graphics, it was even better, but still..
I have a Wii at home and I enjoy some games on it as well as I enjoy some 8-bit games. It´s depending from the game.

Dec 21, 2014 1:34:38 GMT db said:

Why else are you here?

To share a passion with fellows. You registered here at the beginning of this month to tell us that we are awful, knowing that many of the ´younger´ people here are registered and active since 2003? Then you should leave this place in my opinion.

Yeah, but why are you still passionate about these games? It can't ONLY be nostalgia or it would be rather short -lived is my point. I don't think I said anything insulting to anyone here. I'm just discussing games and why people still like them and what makes them endure through time. If you're getting enraged maybe that's just something you like to do because I don't think I've said anything worthy of enraging anyone. My original point of the thread is that it's sort of pointless and silly to keep qualifying ones love and enjoyment of a game by comparing it to a more advanced standard. What's enraging about that?!

[db]

Dec 21, 2014 2:58:35 GMT Centrale said:

Dec 21, 2014 2:27:55 GMT db said:

Well, the only thing informing me IS my experience of games in this regard. I just think it's dumb to keep qualifying one's love and enjoyment of a game by reminding people that it's old and more advanced stuff has happened since. We get it! Now get on with the review!

Yeah, I mean I haven't seen the videos that you're referring to; it might be an instance in which they expect their target audience, or some segment of their audience, to be young people who are automatically turned off by the limitations of older games. There are a series of videos called "Teens React to..." and they'll feature 8-bit games and computers of the 80s and such. I don't even want to watch them because the very concept of the video is to get a funny reaction from these youth who have not been provided any context for what they are interacting with, and have no conception of how we got from there to where we are now.

Personally as a teen I was only slightly interested in the games and toys of the 1950s, which (much to my fascination) is kind of where we're at now with our games of the 80s. But I was probably more open-minded in learning about them than many of my peers, who would have been more instantly dismissive. The problem is when some kids these days say all old games are worthless, and with no historical knowledge, they must wonder why the game designers of the 1970s and 80s didn't immediately start making Call of Duty in its contemporary form.

I suppose you're right. It's probably an attempt to include a wider demographic but I hear it a lot when people are reviewing old games now. Anyway, it just sort of bothers me and I think it's something we'll have to abandon in the future if we're going to continue to be able to talk about games intelligently. I too like to look at the larger historical perspective of video games. When I have laid some of these old games on my nephews who were born in the mid 80s their reaction is usually one of surprise at how challenging they are despite the technical limitations...and they're way better gamers than I'll ever be.

BTW, Gordman, I would think if Shadowangel really had a problem with me she'd take it up with me herself. As far as I could tell we were just having a good conversation. Also, who have I called awful?? I may be opinionated or even at times a tad pedantic but you don't always have to like or agree with what I'm saying. It's an open forum for free speech and my real nefarious intent is usually just to generate some conversation, which I think I've achieved. Seriously though dude, I hope you're feeling better soon. No hard feelings

[Deleted]

You described a lot of people here as ´awful´ - Don´t try to be innocent. You´ve said that, and it sucks as hell.
Think carefully about your choice of words!!

I don´t play my Master System games just for nostalgic reasons. There are a lot of games I never played before, so I have no nostalgic feelings about them. I just love the system and looking to get to know more games for it.

[korax]

Dec 20, 2014 20:20:35 GMT db said:

Hey, everyone. I've noticed a trend in the last few years of people talking about revered old video games but qualifying their statements by always saying, "By today's standards the game hasn't aged well." To everyone who feels the need to add this caveat I say, in the politest way possible, up your nose with a rubber hose! Do we really have to do that?! Aren't we just stating the obvious.? I mean, isn't it a given that as time goes on technology advances and more complexity is possible? Why hold the technological standard of one era up to a future one and point out the obvious shortcomings? A Tesla is very different than an old Corvette but I bet I have lots of fun driving both! I think we're capable of acknowledging the differences while still loving the thing that's more technologically limited for itself.

If games are aging so badly how does one explain the current rise in interest in retro gaming, game collecting and the popularity of youtube shows about such things? Could it be that the games were great in spite of, maybe even sometimes because of their technological limitations? A big part of the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album's legend is that, hey man, they did all that with only 4 tracks available to them and it still rivals a lot of stuff recorded in recent times with unlimited tracks. Honestly, for all it's simplicity, the first time I saw a Pong machine at our local pizzeria when I was about 8 or 9 I felt like the monkey men in Kubrick's 2001, seeing the monolith for the first time...and then my dad and I actually played it. That game will never not be great because of anything that came after.

Well firstly, the statement alone is pretty useless, without any argument or further clarification of what part of today's standards the person who asked it feels that the game hasn't aged well in - it's a highly individualistic question, it falls back to what a person deems a crucial quality in a game. Most people will probably take a look at the graphics of an old game they used to play and say "Well, that game hasn't aged well!" which to me is just as good a reasoning as giving none at all.

Despite the limitations of that time, there were still developers who tried to make their game stand out by demonstrating superior graphics, perhaps thereby sacrificing aspects such as gameplay and story. These are often the games that haven't "aged well", and therefore are probably being played solely due to nostalgia.

But there are a lot of old games that hold up just perfectly, to what I believe, are "todays standards" in terms of gaming. I don't believe I have to elaborate on this, since it has been covered nicely by earlier posters. Suffice it to say that there have been so many groundbreaking revolutions in the computing industry, that it has altered gaming culture and the way we perceive/the possibilities we see in gaming dramatically. Therefore many teens of today lack the perspective to recognize the quality of old games at first, but I know many young people who have given it a chance, and now love them. Wow, I just turned 30 and I'm already saying "young people" - I guess that just goes to show how fast development in the gaming/computer world has been over the years. I don't believe there is any other sector that has seen such rapid advancement, which makes it hard to draw a comparison to other industries.

Therefore the example you mention with the Corvette and Tesla also falls out of place, and although I don't know that much about cars, I still very much doubt that anybody would say "Well that hasn't aged well!" if they saw an old Corvette. There hasn't been that many revolutionizing changes in the automobile industry between those two models, compared to the computer industry. I mean, in order for them to be just somewhat in the same league, we'd have to have hovercars or flying cars by now, as a standard method of transporation, in comparison to what a household PC is capable of today, compared to back then.