I don't get this whole "game or console hasn't aged well" (especially graphics)
For some reason I have a feeling I may have made a topic like this before; forgive me if I had and forgotten. Lately the past few years I've heard of games and consoles (especially in terms of graphics) described as "has/hasn't aged well". Folks, if we were talking about wine or other adult beverages, then yes it's very important that it has aged well.
But as for games/consoles (especially in terms of graphics) that just makes no sense. I mean if when the game came out (like say Ocarina of Time that got tons of perfect 10 scores everywhere, including graphics) it was considered awesome/masterpiece at the time, including graphics, then how can it be said that it "hasn't aged well"? Isn't it still the same game? Did the game/graphics magically deteriorate over time or something? Obviously not. And how were they supposed to predict the future besides? Great game then, great game now, right?
I will concede however this little story from back in the spring of 1999 (in the heart of the 5th gen or PS1/N64 era)...I was with the HS baseball team as their student manager on our traditional Cocoa Beach, FL spring break vacation at the time, and one guy had a N64 with them and All-Star Baseball 99/2000(?) and the other had a PS1 with a baseball game (not sure, one of the Triple Play ones maybe?) and while I thought the N64 game looked real nice, the PS1 game looked all fuzzy/jaggedy (remember, these were my thoughts at the time) but I figured that was because the PS1 was 32-bit and N64 was 64-bit, you know, twice as good graphics?
I guess a fairer way of judging a retro game/graphics is this, what did that system offer up to that point in time? Yes when I did FF7 for the first time I admit the characters looked kinda funny/polygonial but could a 1997 PS1 game done it reasonably better?
But as for games/consoles (especially in terms of graphics) that just makes no sense. I mean if when the game came out (like say Ocarina of Time that got tons of perfect 10 scores everywhere, including graphics) it was considered awesome/masterpiece at the time, including graphics, then how can it be said that it "hasn't aged well"? Isn't it still the same game? Did the game/graphics magically deteriorate over time or something? Obviously not. And how were they supposed to predict the future besides? Great game then, great game now, right?
I will concede however this little story from back in the spring of 1999 (in the heart of the 5th gen or PS1/N64 era)...I was with the HS baseball team as their student manager on our traditional Cocoa Beach, FL spring break vacation at the time, and one guy had a N64 with them and All-Star Baseball 99/2000(?) and the other had a PS1 with a baseball game (not sure, one of the Triple Play ones maybe?) and while I thought the N64 game looked real nice, the PS1 game looked all fuzzy/jaggedy (remember, these were my thoughts at the time) but I figured that was because the PS1 was 32-bit and N64 was 64-bit, you know, twice as good graphics?
I guess a fairer way of judging a retro game/graphics is this, what did that system offer up to that point in time? Yes when I did FF7 for the first time I admit the characters looked kinda funny/polygonial but could a 1997 PS1 game done it reasonably better?
Comments
I hear this about Goldeneye a lot (and the controls not aging well) but I don't feel the same way. All subjective of course.
And a lot of people make the same argument for N64 and early 3D graphics. That is the whole reason remakes are so successful. Take a game like OOT / Mario 64 that hasn't aged well or looks blocky and polygonal, update the graphics, re-release the game and sell millions of copies. There is an entire market of rebranding the best games from that era that didn't age well.
As far as your example goes, I've never heard one person say that Ocarina of Time hasn't aged well, so I can't really comment on that.
Makes perfect sense to me.
The most important thing is to ignore the literal definition of the word 'age', as that's not what people mean when they're talking about games aging well.
The way I think of it is --
Would somebody playing this old game who's never played it before feel like the graphics, or 80's references, etc., -- Would these things be detrimental to the immersion or enjoyment of the game for a new player?
When you take an old game and compare it to games today, is someone More or Less likely to enjoy this game? I think there's a huge varying degree here and a lot of immeasurable factors involved. And it's really up to the opinion of the person who likes the old game. Can they take off their rose-tinted glasses, put aside how awesome they know the rest of the game is if they keep playing, and seriously ask themselves -- If I was playing this game for the first time today, would the graphics (or whatever else) be enough of a detriment that I may not keep playing?
Are the graphics 'dated' or did they 'age well'? Is the story 'dated' or did it 'age well'? Are the references and in-jokes 'dated' or did they 'age well'?
Using this logic, you can even look at the Atari 2600 and tell which games have 'aged' better. For instance, I'd argue that the gameplay and graphics found in Yars' Revenge aged better than a lot of other Atari 2600 games.
For some reason I have a feeling I may have made a topic like this before; forgive me if I had and forgotten.
Pretty sure you have... (or maybe somebody else has)
But I feel like we've done this topic at least on a 6-month basis.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Estil
For some reason I have a feeling I may have made a topic like this before; forgive me if I had and forgotten.
Pretty sure you have... (or maybe somebody else has)
But I feel like we've done this topic at least on a 6-month basis.
And I feel like it's either you or dra600n that references Ocarina of Time as an example each time, lol
But as for games/consoles (especially in terms of graphics) that just makes no sense. I mean if when the game came out (like say Ocarina of Time that got tons of perfect 10 scores everywhere, including graphics) it was considered awesome/masterpiece at the time, including graphics, then how can it be said that it "hasn't aged well"? Isn't it still the same game? Did the game/graphics magically deteriorate over time or something? Obviously not. And how were they supposed to predict the future besides? Great game then, great game now, right?
Of course it's the same game. But sometimes the newness of certain eras (such as the 3D of the consoles you're talking about) might have caused people to overlook some of the flaws the graphics may have had. When 3D lost its novelty, people took a more critical eye. If the game doesn't have anything beyond its novelty, the idiom of "It hasn't aged well" comes into play. Its novelty is no longer novel, and the flaws come forefront. Compared to games, like, say, classic NES games that are all 2D, but provide good gameplay, and had good graphics that are still attractive, that game has said to age well. And it could be some 3D games have also had good graphics and hold up beyond the novelty of 3D.
That's all that means.
People who try to nitpick the semantics of that need a good punch to the dick. (Not you, you're asking an honest question. But punch the next guy who tries to do that.)
Mskes sense to me. The game at the time, you didnt know what better looked like snd now that you go back to it the mechanics or graphics hinder the gameplay or look really bad.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Yep, pretty much my thought exactly.
Originally posted by: Br81zad
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Estil
For some reason I have a feeling I may have made a topic like this before; forgive me if I had and forgotten.
Pretty sure you have... (or maybe somebody else has)
But I feel like we've done this topic at least on a 6-month basis.
And I feel like it's either you or dra600n that references Ocarina of Time as an example each time, lol
Lots of other great examples from that era.
I did finally play through OOT on an emulator (with the benefit of crisper resolution) and while it was a fun game, I still don't think it deserves half of the praise that it gets.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Br81zad
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Estil
For some reason I have a feeling I may have made a topic like this before; forgive me if I had and forgotten.
Pretty sure you have... (or maybe somebody else has)
But I feel like we've done this topic at least on a 6-month basis.
And I feel like it's either you or dra600n that references Ocarina of Time as an example each time, lol
Lots of other great examples from that era.
I did finally play through OOT on an emulator (with the benefit of crisper resolution) and while it was a fun game, I still don't think it deserves half of the praise that it gets.
Ah-ha, so it IS you, lol
Yeah, I remember you bringing up your emulator play thru last time
Originally posted by: Br81zad
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Br81zad
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Estil
For some reason I have a feeling I may have made a topic like this before; forgive me if I had and forgotten.
Pretty sure you have... (or maybe somebody else has)
But I feel like we've done this topic at least on a 6-month basis.
And I feel like it's either you or dra600n that references Ocarina of Time as an example each time, lol
Lots of other great examples from that era.
I did finally play through OOT on an emulator (with the benefit of crisper resolution) and while it was a fun game, I still don't think it deserves half of the praise that it gets.
Ah-ha, so it IS you, lol
Yeah, I remember you bringing up your emulator play thru last time
Pretty sure you're correct that Dra600n has been known to chime in with similar (or even the same) examples.
Stuff that was supposed to be next gen or cutting edge, but ended up being a dead end
The camera in Mario 64 could be considered crap compared to Galaxy.
I thought Mario 64's camera was crap back when I got it new. So many deaths due to bad camera placement and limitations of the controller. I remember being extremely frustrated when trying to jump from pole to pole in Dire Dire Docks and trying to run straight when the camera was completely zoomed out in certain Bowser stages.
But to answer the OP's question, when I see "didn't age well," I take it to mean that the gameplay isn't as crisp and clean when you go back and play it. And typically there are plenty of examples of games doing it right in those eras and "aging well." For me, the main offenders are PS1 and N64-era games. PS1 games tend to "age better" to me, because of the superior controller. If they were stellar then, they still to hold up pretty well to this day. Games that had control or gameplay issues back then, while less pronounced in their time, are more glaring today now that we've gotten used to then level of polish that is applied to nearly every console game released for this gen and last gen.
The camera in Mario 64 could be considered crap compared to Galaxy.
I thought Mario 64's camera was crap back when I got it new. So many deaths due to bad camera placement and limitations of the controller. I remember being extremely frustrated when trying to jump from pole to pole in Dire Dire Docks and trying to run straight when the camera was completely zoomed out in certain Bowser stages.
So did I, but we made due because it's all we knew. All I was trying to say was, for somebody who dealt with it back then, they may be more forgiving then somebody now who is used to the better that they have today
The camera in Mario 64 could be considered crap compared to Galaxy.
I thought Mario 64's camera was crap back when I got it new. So many deaths due to bad camera placement and limitations of the controller. I remember being extremely frustrated when trying to jump from pole to pole in Dire Dire Docks and trying to run straight when the camera was completely zoomed out in certain Bowser stages.
So did I, but we made due because it's all we knew. All I was trying to say was, for somebody who dealt with it back then, they may be more forgiving then somebody now who is used to the better that they have today
Yep, and that's a great point. N64 and PS1 games are certainly a case of "being first isn't always best." I always picture that era of gaming as a newborn giraffe, walking around on its four wobbly legs and trying to adjust to a new, confusing world.
Edit: Ha! It's even better if you picture the N64 logo wobbling around on its legs.
We've been spoiled by technology and of course at the time, they looked great. (just like in 1991, T2 had the best CGI)
I hear this about Goldeneye a lot (and the controls not aging well) but I don't feel the same way. All subjective of course.
To me, when it comes to Goldeneye, or most other FPS games on the N64, the controls haven't aged well because there was only one analog stick back then. We sucked it up and learned to deal with it, because we didn't have an alternative. As soon as I played a system with two analog sticks(Xbox, PS2, GC, etc), I couldnt go back to one. I have some tremendously great memories of Goldeneye, Turok, Perfect Dark, etc, and I just can't go back to them. The controls are now a huge hinderance. Doom and Quake were somehow playable compared to the others, an I've gone back to them a few times.
That's not even getting into shaky framerates, poo-colored bland textures, etc.
We've been spoiled by technology and of course at the time, they looked great. (just like in 1991, T2 had the best CGI)
I hear this about Goldeneye a lot (and the controls not aging well) but I don't feel the same way. All subjective of course.
To me, when it comes to Goldeneye, or most other FPS games on the N64, the controls haven't aged well because there was only one analog stick back then. We sucked it up and learned to deal with it, because we didn't have an alternative. As soon as I played a system with two analog sticks(Xbox, PS2, GC, etc), I couldnt go back to one. I have some tremendously great memories of Goldeneye, Turok, Perfect Dark, etc, and I just can't go back to them. The controls are now a huge hinderance. Doom and Quake were somehow playable compared to the others, an I've gone back to them a few times.
That's not even getting into shaky framerates, poo-colored bland textures, etc.
The rerelease on the PC for the original Turok plays incredibly well with twin-analog sticks (something like a Logitech F710, or any PC-compatible X-input controller)
Really is night-and-day compared to trying to get by with a single analog.
Anyway, I agree with the OP. Games don't age, we do. I still continue to play Saturn, N64 and late 90s PC games, they're the same as they were back when they were new, along with every other game ever.
Anyway, I agree with the OP. Games don't age, we do. I still continue to play Saturn, N64 and late 90s PC games, they're the same as they were back when they were new, along with every other game ever.
*punching Guntz in the crotch*
Everyone knows the games are still the same. That's not what the phrase means.
How is it night and day when people use keyboard (digital) and mouse (analog) on PCs? Did you guys know you can move with the D-Pad and aim with the analog stick in N64 shooters??
Do all of the N64 shooters support that control scheme?
Some of the complaint just comes from the ergonomics of an N64 controller versus the dual analog shape adopted by Sony.
(and fancier gaming keyboards have analog WASD keys, from what I've seen, so some PC gamers want analog movement to go with their keyboard and mouse setup)
For N64 stuff, though, I only ever played the console at a friend's house, but I don't have fond memories of what buttons you had access to in any particular configuration, versus what I've grown accustomed to with more modern controllers.
The whole "not aged well" argument is often biased and nostalgia driven. "Man,that game was awesome back in the day! Oh man...playing it now,this sucks,that sucks,etc. It hasn't aged well,I remember it being better"
Also judgements on games are often done so not only with that game's era of technology,but all eras,which is unfair.
Even as a kid I knew (as I think most people knew) when a game was good or crap. I grew up with a 2600 and that system and most of its' games sucked then and suck now.
Just like the nes and snes were great systems with lots of great games then and that holds true today.
Compare games released early in the systems run to those released near the end of its lifespan and compare how the games hold up on an equal field.
Cant compare night driving on the 2600 to grand turismo on ps2
Essentially, it comes down to whether or not the person looking back on retro games was wearing rose colored glasses at the time. Many of us that played PS1 or N64 were just astounded to see games in 3D on a console and didn't care too much for how things looked. Final Fantasy 7 for example. Everyone went gaga over the graphics because it was new and looked good for the time, then Final Fantasy 8 came out and blew those graphics away. Big time. Watching Polygon Cloud run around with his cereal box arms and geometrically accurate hair just doesn't give the same wow effect. Still a great game, but it's clearly a product of its time.
For whatever reason, I can't make N64 look good. Even on RGB, it fares worse than Saturn and PS1.
And I can't go further back than NES. It's what I started with. Atari and before look like crap to me.
Originally posted by: Tulpa
*punching Guntz in the crotch*
Everyone knows the games are still the same. That's not what the phrase means.
The phrase sucks then. All it really says is people are extremely shallow.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Do all of the N64 shooters support that control scheme?
Some of the complaint just comes from the ergonomics of an N64 controller versus the dual analog shape adopted by Sony.
(and fancier gaming keyboards have analog WASD keys, from what I've seen, so some PC gamers want analog movement to go with their keyboard and mouse setup)
For N64 stuff, though, I only ever played the console at a friend's house, but I don't have fond memories of what buttons you had access to in any particular configuration, versus what I've grown accustomed to with more modern controllers.
Every N64 shooter I have tried supports the "left hand" control scheme, which uses the D-pad and analog stick. All the Turoks, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Doom 64, Duke Nukem 64 and IIRC both Quakes. Consider that even the first FPS on the N64, Turok 1, supports that control scheme.
The ergonomics are just fine, try giving the control scheme a chance.
By comparison, the Dreamcast is absolutely miserable if you're stuck with the standard controller. You absolutely need the keyboard and mouse. What sucks is not every shooter supports that combo.