Why are you so defensive about the subject? Many, many, many people will agree that Goldeneye is not as fun as they remember. I've seen it first-hand roughly (and by that I mean exactly) 100% of the time with 20+ people.
Because I can't stand people perpetuating biased hate on classic video games. It's the same phenomenon that makes people believe the Virtual Boy, Sega CD and 32X are bad.
I guarantee, those people saying GoldenEye is not as fun as they remember hadn't played it in many years. They likely moved up to PC shooters, Halo and COD before eventually returning to GoldenEye. Yes, OBVIOUSLY that might change someone's perception. You know what else does? TIME. If you haven't played something for years, your fond memories are going to morph into fiction.
Goldeneye is perhaps my favorite game of all-time but even I admit that it hasn't aged well. It's not just blocky graphics, but FPS is played on dual sticks now and a single stick FPS is a huge step backward. It doesn't mean it is unplayable or not fun, it just means the genre has improved so much that it feels clunky by comparison.
When I think of "has it aged well", I ask myself if it is easy and fun to pick up and play for a casual that has never experienced the game with nostalgia. Someone who has never played SMB3 can pick it up and enjoy it most likely. Someone who has never played 007 would probably give it a try and then shelf it after a brief playthru. Same thing with Starfox on SNES that tried to mimick early 3D, pretty obsolete by today's standards.
I also think a game has aged poorly if it has no save structure and requires a long time to play to beat. That is a design limitation that is simply not practical for adults with real priorities. If you made the same exact game and added a save feature, the other one becomes obsolete by default.
"I don't think "how good it was when new" is relevant. We're talking about how well it's aged, if you enjoyed tomb raider when it was new, but don't now, that means it has aged poorly."
That is a purely subjective statement, it comes down to personal opinion. Therefore, at minimum, saying something has aged poorly is in the eye of the beholder. At most, it means the idiom is worthless BS.
I read the OP, but not all the angry posts after it . I'd say a game doesn't age well when its gameplay is not inherently enjoyable, and it was just novelty. Example: Time Traveler and similar games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Traveler_(video_game)
Other games that haven't aged well are those that were decent and innovative in their time, but have been cloned to death thereafter (like Wolfenstein 3D, it is still enjoyable, but nowadays it is too simplistic in my opinion), and/or that have been widely surpassed by games in the same genre (original Space Invaders, I believe it was surpassed by Galaxian, and that one was surpassed by Galaga. Honestly, who wants to play Galaxian when you can play Galaga??).
Goldeneye is perhaps my favorite game of all-time but even I admit that it hasn't aged well. It's not just blocky graphics, but FPS is played on dual sticks now and a single stick FPS is a huge step backward. It doesn't mean it is unplayable or not fun, it just means the genre has improved so much that it feels clunky by comparison.
Start a mission, go to options, pick controller option Solitaire 1.2, move your hands to the D-pad and Analog Stick. You now have the controller equivalent of the classic PC keyboard and mouse, virtually the same thing as dual analog sticks.
GoldenEye N64 has not aged poorly. People are just shallow.
Originally posted by: jonebone
I also think a game has aged poorly if it has no save structure and requires a long time to play to beat. That is a design limitation that is simply not practical for adults with real priorities. If you made the same exact game and added a save feature, the other one becomes obsolete by default.
That's subjective, not all people are the same. How can an idiom be based on something subjective?
Goldeneye is perhaps my favorite game of all-time but even I admit that it hasn't aged well. It's not just blocky graphics, but FPS is played on dual sticks now and a single stick FPS is a huge step backward. It doesn't mean it is unplayable or not fun, it just means the genre has improved so much that it feels clunky by comparison.
Start a mission, go to options, pick controller option Solitaire 1.2, move your hands to the D-pad and Analog Stick. You now have the controller equivalent of the classic PC keyboard and mouse, virtually the same thing as dual analog sticks.
...except two of the buttons are only located on the right side of the controller.
Speaking of things that have aged poorly, in many ways, N64 controllers
They're not hard to reach with adult hands, something Jonebone likely has.
If that is really too much, GoldenEye 007 also allows dual controller usage, just pick any of the 2.x options at the controller screen. There, dual analog sticks...
They're not hard to reach with adult hands, something Jonebone likely has.
If that is really too much, GoldenEye 007 also allows dual controller usage, just pick any of the 2.x options at the controller screen. There, dual analog sticks...
But you'd have to remove a hand from your movement or aiming controls. Even if momentary, that is practically unheard of in FPS'dom
I never did try out the dual wield setup, but how that would work with only the Z buttons? One to fire, and the other changes weapons? Hold both to manipulate the environment or something? How do you pause?
No, I think there is something to it. Maybe not consensus, but it's definitely a thing. I doubt anyone thinks Super Mario Bros. 3 aged poorly, while the same cannot be said for Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Fox, or Mortal Kombat.
I'm one who thinks that SMB3 has aged poorly, at least the original cartridge when played on a NES as originally intended. I would rather play Star Fox. It came from an era where players were expected to complete a _long_ game in a single sitting. The warp whistles somewhat compensate for the lack of a save feature, but they're still no substitute. Of course now we have emulator save states and other options for non-purists, so I am only referring to the original cart.
NES Ghosts n Goblins comes to mind as a game that has aged like milk. I played it as a kid because I enjoyed the arcade game and this was as close as I was going to get to having the arcade at home, even though I sucked mightily at it. I didn't even notice how clunky it is. Playing it now, the clunkiness is glaring. Datedness is going to be an issue with home arcade ports where at the time they were the only option so huge flaws were often overlooked. And old consoles with libraries mostly comprised of ports (especially when terrible harrdware-wise) are going to be among the most dated. Is there a reason to still own an Atari 5200 besides pure nostalgia or collection purposes?
But you'd have to remove a hand from your movement or aiming controls. Even if momentary, that is practically unheard of in FPS'dom
I never did try out the dual wield setup, but how that would work with only the Z buttons? One to fire, and the other changes weapons? Hold both to manipulate the environment or something? How do you pause?
You don't have to remove your hand, just reach over with your thumb like with any other controller. I manage it just fine when I play GoldenEye.
The dual wield setup works similarly, it uses both Z buttons and at least one Start button, B button and A button. While you're playing the game, it works quite well, but one controller with Solitaire 1.2 works fine for me. It's the only good option you have if playing with 3 or 4 players anyway.
mbd39's post is an excellent example of my point. Clearly what he's trying to say is he doesn't think SMB3 and NES Ghosts n Goblins are very good due to technical limitation. What I think needs to stop is using "aged poorly" to justify why you think a game is bad. Just say the game is bad, stop using excuses as to why you think that way.
For example, I do not like NiGHTS Into Dreams for Saturn, I think it's very difficult to control and the tiny field of view doesn't allow enough time to see ahead of yourself. I could say it has aged poorly, but I won't, because that's a stupid thing to say.
Hey guys, check out this review comment thread from the Video Game Critic board. The VGC reviewed Golden Eye and gave it an average rating, and this turned into a discussion about why some games are dated.
-cumbersome saving (thank gods for auto-save/suspend play)
-awkward controls (anything before the twin stick setup can be rough)
This is mostly N64/ps1. By ps2/Ngc much of these were fixed. Ps2 games in particular have aged well, I just played through the first two god of war games and they are still impressive.
But I loved Goldeneye at the time. I played it until I had the Facility cheat unlocked. I would be hard-pressed to play it much now. It went from a game I love to a game I have fond memories of. Whereas I have played through Doom at least 3 times in the last 10 years, and I would have no qualms about doing it again.
Goldeneye is perhaps my favorite game of all-time but even I admit that it hasn't aged well. It's not just blocky graphics, but FPS is played on dual sticks now and a single stick FPS is a huge step backward. It doesn't mean it is unplayable or not fun, it just means the genre has improved so much that it feels clunky by comparison
agreed. I can name many games that I really like, that haven't aged well. The main point is, has something in a game been done better by another game. If Goldeneye controlled well, all FPS would still control like that, there's a reason they don't.
A few years ago I held a videogame tournament in the style of The Critic's Videogame Mania and Goldeneye was EASILY the least well received game played. Many people were in absolute shock at just how badly the game plays now.
That pretty much nails the reception it got at my parties too
At one point we made the mistake of choosing the Caves level, which I remembered too late was one I avoided back in the day. It was... comical.
I always thought age well implied that the graphics are not god awful and the controls are still solid along with the game still being fun to play many years after its initial release.
Like most people have pointed out, a game "aging well" is a too subjective.
Using Mdb39's point about SMB3, I can say the opposite of why it aged very well. While he finds the need to play through the entire game in one sitting a chore, I for one find that refreshing.
While I understand nintendo's reasons for adding constant saving to their mario game worlds, I find most of them I've never completed because the world system doesn't force me to commit to playing them.
I don't usually take graphics into account when thinking something "aged poorly". I was playing high resolution, high framerate PC games in the 90s. I knew games like SotC and Goldeneye had a horrible framerates when I first played them. It's not like I went back to them and it's like "Oh my god, how did we ever think this was great 15 years ago!". SotC didn't lose any of the amazing scale or music or art direction. Goldeneye didn't lose any of the fantastic objective-based missions that get more complex as you increase the difficulty or nearly scene-by-scene accuracy with the movie.
Old PC strategy games and RPGs are examples of good games that have sometimes aged poorly in my opinion. They have icon-filled UIs, layers on layers of pop up windows to manage, and general lack of quality-of-life features that are very standard in games now (queues, automation, easily issuing orders to groups rather than individuals, not having to individually buy spell reagents to cast spells...). You could make these same games much easier, faster, and more fun to play if you took out the archaic and obtuse interfaces.
Unfortunately modern games sometimes dumb down complexity rather than simplify and streamline the interface to manage it.
I haven't played it in years, but ironically think SotC is probably an example of a game that won't age. Unique gameplay and strong art design will generally stand the test of time, technical hiccups aside.
I haven't played it in years, but ironically think SotC is probably an example of a game that won't age. Unique gameplay and strong art design will generally stand the test of time, technical hiccups aside.
I haven't played it in years, but ironically think SotC is probably an example of a game that won't age. Unique gameplay and strong art design will generally stand the test of time, technical hiccups aside.
And did pegboy even post in here?
Edit - Asshole comment......I retract it.
Or you could have expressed the same thing in a less hostile manner, eg. "No, but we already know what Pegboy thinks. "
As I mentioned in my own topic on this issue, I mostly don't understand the age well concept at all...it's the same game now as it was then right? Still, even during the 5th gen (late 90s) when I was on vacation in Florida with the baseball team (I was student manager) and they had both a PS1 and N64 and I thought the PS1 baseball game looked all jaggedy and weird compared to the N64 baseball game. But I figured that was only because PS1 was 32 bit and N64 was 64 bit and thus N64 could do twice as good graphics and such right?
PS: Among other things I'm working on another go around of Donkey Kong 64 as well as my first playthrough of Banjo-Kazooie (what took me so long on that one?) and I personally think the games look just as good now as they did then. Though I imagine if I grew up from PS2 era or later I'd probably feel differently and think games from 5th gen or before look all weird and such right?
As I mentioned in my own topic on this issue, I mostly don't understand the age well concept at all...it's the same game now as it was then right? Still, even during the 5th gen (late 90s) when I was on vacation in Florida with the baseball team (I was student manager) and they had both a PS1 and N64 and I thought the PS1 baseball game looked all jaggedy and weird compared to the N64 baseball game. But I figured that was only because PS1 was 32 bit and N64 was 64 bit and thus N64 could do twice as good graphics and such right?
When its all you know its different. Controls and graphics improve. When you get used to modern day things and try to play the old you see all the flaws and poor controls and visuals more. This mainly sticks out like a sore thumb with 3d polygon era. I think you are intentionally playing dumb to this argument. Of course its the same game, but your perspective is changed. The games are generally still playable, they just arent as good because youve played better and know better. They can still be fun, but by not aging well they are meaning they arent as good as they remember. At the time you didnt know better. They were new. Its really not that hard a concept to understand.
As I mentioned in my own topic on this issue, I mostly don't understand the age well concept at all...it's the same game now as it was then right? Still, even during the 5th gen (late 90s) when I was on vacation in Florida with the baseball team (I was student manager) and they had both a PS1 and N64 and I thought the PS1 baseball game looked all jaggedy and weird compared to the N64 baseball game. But I figured that was only because PS1 was 32 bit and N64 was 64 bit and thus N64 could do twice as good graphics and such right?
When its all you know its different. Controls and graphics improve. When you get used to modern day things and try to play the old you see all the flaws and poor controls and visuals more. This mainly sticks out like a sore thumb with 3d polygon era. I think you are intentionally playing dumb to this argument. Of course its the same game, but your perspective is changed. The games are generally still playable, they just arent as good because youve played better and know better. They can still be fun, but by not aging well they are meaning they arent as good as they remember. At the time you didnt know better. They were new. Its really not that hard a concept to understand.
yup. Remember how awesome flip phones were? "Holy shit it has a camera now!" Would you use one today, knowing there are smartphones? Why not? It's still the same phone that was awesome back then
yup. Remember how awesome flip phones were? "Holy shit it has a camera now!" Would you use one today, knowing there are smartphones? Why not? It's still the same phone that was awesome back then
Nice try but the camera is obviously a lot better now than then. But with games its very different. Because no two games are exactly alike and only a tiny fraction of those games get re-released on the virtual console, PS store, or whatnot.
And yes that's all the more reason I'm so confused about all these smartphones and plans, how would you know which phone and which plan is the best? At least with game consoles you know exactly what you're getting and each one has a very different library of games, including many exclusives that you can't get anywhere else.
Comments
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
Why are you so defensive about the subject? Many, many, many people will agree that Goldeneye is not as fun as they remember. I've seen it first-hand roughly (and by that I mean exactly) 100% of the time with 20+ people.
Because I can't stand people perpetuating biased hate on classic video games. It's the same phenomenon that makes people believe the Virtual Boy, Sega CD and 32X are bad.
I guarantee, those people saying GoldenEye is not as fun as they remember hadn't played it in many years. They likely moved up to PC shooters, Halo and COD before eventually returning to GoldenEye. Yes, OBVIOUSLY that might change someone's perception. You know what else does? TIME. If you haven't played something for years, your fond memories are going to morph into fiction.
When I think of "has it aged well", I ask myself if it is easy and fun to pick up and play for a casual that has never experienced the game with nostalgia. Someone who has never played SMB3 can pick it up and enjoy it most likely. Someone who has never played 007 would probably give it a try and then shelf it after a brief playthru. Same thing with Starfox on SNES that tried to mimick early 3D, pretty obsolete by today's standards.
I also think a game has aged poorly if it has no save structure and requires a long time to play to beat. That is a design limitation that is simply not practical for adults with real priorities. If you made the same exact game and added a save feature, the other one becomes obsolete by default.
Originally posted by: Tulpa
Because he doesn't understand the idiom.
Because it's a shitty idiom that needs to die.
Here, look at what BertBerryCrunch said:
"I don't think "how good it was when new" is relevant. We're talking about how well it's aged, if you enjoyed tomb raider when it was new, but don't now, that means it has aged poorly."
That is a purely subjective statement, it comes down to personal opinion. Therefore, at minimum, saying something has aged poorly is in the eye of the beholder. At most, it means the idiom is worthless BS.
Other games that haven't aged well are those that were decent and innovative in their time, but have been cloned to death thereafter (like Wolfenstein 3D, it is still enjoyable, but nowadays it is too simplistic in my opinion), and/or that have been widely surpassed by games in the same genre (original Space Invaders, I believe it was surpassed by Galaxian, and that one was surpassed by Galaga. Honestly, who wants to play Galaxian when you can play Galaga??).
Originally posted by: jonebone
Goldeneye is perhaps my favorite game of all-time but even I admit that it hasn't aged well. It's not just blocky graphics, but FPS is played on dual sticks now and a single stick FPS is a huge step backward. It doesn't mean it is unplayable or not fun, it just means the genre has improved so much that it feels clunky by comparison.
Start a mission, go to options, pick controller option Solitaire 1.2, move your hands to the D-pad and Analog Stick. You now have the controller equivalent of the classic PC keyboard and mouse, virtually the same thing as dual analog sticks.
GoldenEye N64 has not aged poorly. People are just shallow.
Originally posted by: jonebone
I also think a game has aged poorly if it has no save structure and requires a long time to play to beat. That is a design limitation that is simply not practical for adults with real priorities. If you made the same exact game and added a save feature, the other one becomes obsolete by default.
That's subjective, not all people are the same. How can an idiom be based on something subjective?
Goldeneye is perhaps my favorite game of all-time but even I admit that it hasn't aged well. It's not just blocky graphics, but FPS is played on dual sticks now and a single stick FPS is a huge step backward. It doesn't mean it is unplayable or not fun, it just means the genre has improved so much that it feels clunky by comparison.
Start a mission, go to options, pick controller option Solitaire 1.2, move your hands to the D-pad and Analog Stick. You now have the controller equivalent of the classic PC keyboard and mouse, virtually the same thing as dual analog sticks.
...except two of the buttons are only located on the right side of the controller.
Speaking of things that have aged poorly, in many ways, N64 controllers
If that is really too much, GoldenEye 007 also allows dual controller usage, just pick any of the 2.x options at the controller screen. There, dual analog sticks...
They're not hard to reach with adult hands, something Jonebone likely has.
If that is really too much, GoldenEye 007 also allows dual controller usage, just pick any of the 2.x options at the controller screen. There, dual analog sticks...
But you'd have to remove a hand from your movement or aiming controls. Even if momentary, that is practically unheard of in FPS'dom
I never did try out the dual wield setup, but how that would work with only the Z buttons? One to fire, and the other changes weapons? Hold both to manipulate the environment or something? How do you pause?
No, I think there is something to it. Maybe not consensus, but it's definitely a thing. I doubt anyone thinks Super Mario Bros. 3 aged poorly, while the same cannot be said for Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Fox, or Mortal Kombat.
I'm one who thinks that SMB3 has aged poorly, at least the original cartridge when played on a NES as originally intended. I would rather play Star Fox. It came from an era where players were expected to complete a _long_ game in a single sitting. The warp whistles somewhat compensate for the lack of a save feature, but they're still no substitute. Of course now we have emulator save states and other options for non-purists, so I am only referring to the original cart.
NES Ghosts n Goblins comes to mind as a game that has aged like milk. I played it as a kid because I enjoyed the arcade game and this was as close as I was going to get to having the arcade at home, even though I sucked mightily at it. I didn't even notice how clunky it is. Playing it now, the clunkiness is glaring. Datedness is going to be an issue with home arcade ports where at the time they were the only option so huge flaws were often overlooked. And old consoles with libraries mostly comprised of ports (especially when terrible harrdware-wise) are going to be among the most dated. Is there a reason to still own an Atari 5200 besides pure nostalgia or collection purposes?
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
But you'd have to remove a hand from your movement or aiming controls. Even if momentary, that is practically unheard of in FPS'dom
I never did try out the dual wield setup, but how that would work with only the Z buttons? One to fire, and the other changes weapons? Hold both to manipulate the environment or something? How do you pause?
You don't have to remove your hand, just reach over with your thumb like with any other controller. I manage it just fine when I play GoldenEye.
The dual wield setup works similarly, it uses both Z buttons and at least one Start button, B button and A button. While you're playing the game, it works quite well, but one controller with Solitaire 1.2 works fine for me. It's the only good option you have if playing with 3 or 4 players anyway.
mbd39's post is an excellent example of my point. Clearly what he's trying to say is he doesn't think SMB3 and NES Ghosts n Goblins are very good due to technical limitation. What I think needs to stop is using "aged poorly" to justify why you think a game is bad. Just say the game is bad, stop using excuses as to why you think that way.
For example, I do not like NiGHTS Into Dreams for Saturn, I think it's very difficult to control and the tiny field of view doesn't allow enough time to see ahead of yourself. I could say it has aged poorly, but I won't, because that's a stupid thing to say.
http://videogamecritic.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=39461&t=15219&sid=1efea006b4f8d0b86444f910916a6719
-cumbersome saving (thank gods for auto-save/suspend play)
-awkward controls (anything before the twin stick setup can be rough)
This is mostly N64/ps1. By ps2/Ngc much of these were fixed. Ps2 games in particular have aged well, I just played through the first two god of war games and they are still impressive.
Goldeneye is perhaps my favorite game of all-time but even I admit that it hasn't aged well. It's not just blocky graphics, but FPS is played on dual sticks now and a single stick FPS is a huge step backward. It doesn't mean it is unplayable or not fun, it just means the genre has improved so much that it feels clunky by comparison
agreed. I can name many games that I really like, that haven't aged well. The main point is, has something in a game been done better by another game. If Goldeneye controlled well, all FPS would still control like that, there's a reason they don't.
http://videogamecritic.com/forums...
A few years ago I held a videogame tournament in the style of The Critic's Videogame Mania and Goldeneye was EASILY the least well received game played. Many people were in absolute shock at just how badly the game plays now.
That pretty much nails the reception it got at my parties too
At one point we made the mistake of choosing the Caves level, which I remembered too late was one I avoided back in the day. It was... comical.
Using Mdb39's point about SMB3, I can say the opposite of why it aged very well. While he finds the need to play through the entire game in one sitting a chore, I for one find that refreshing.
While I understand nintendo's reasons for adding constant saving to their mario game worlds, I find most of them I've never completed because the world system doesn't force me to commit to playing them.
Old PC strategy games and RPGs are examples of good games that have sometimes aged poorly in my opinion. They have icon-filled UIs, layers on layers of pop up windows to manage, and general lack of quality-of-life features that are very standard in games now (queues, automation, easily issuing orders to groups rather than individuals, not having to individually buy spell reagents to cast spells...). You could make these same games much easier, faster, and more fun to play if you took out the archaic and obtuse interfaces.
Unfortunately modern games sometimes dumb down complexity rather than simplify and streamline the interface to manage it.
And did pegboy even post in here?
I haven't played it in years, but ironically think SotC is probably an example of a game that won't age. Unique gameplay and strong art design will generally stand the test of time, technical hiccups aside.
And did pegboy even post in here?
Edit - Asshole comment......I retract it.
Havent played it yet. I got the ps3 hd remaster with ico. Are tgere any differences?
They kinda ruined the ending by not revealing gender of a child you see.
I haven't played it in years, but ironically think SotC is probably an example of a game that won't age. Unique gameplay and strong art design will generally stand the test of time, technical hiccups aside.
And did pegboy even post in here?
Edit - Asshole comment......I retract it.
Or you could have expressed the same thing in a less hostile manner, eg. "No, but we already know what Pegboy thinks. "
Phrasing is key.
PS: Among other things I'm working on another go around of Donkey Kong 64 as well as my first playthrough of Banjo-Kazooie (what took me so long on that one?) and I personally think the games look just as good now as they did then. Though I imagine if I grew up from PS2 era or later I'd probably feel differently and think games from 5th gen or before look all weird and such right?
As I mentioned in my own topic on this issue, I mostly don't understand the age well concept at all...it's the same game now as it was then right? Still, even during the 5th gen (late 90s) when I was on vacation in Florida with the baseball team (I was student manager) and they had both a PS1 and N64 and I thought the PS1 baseball game looked all jaggedy and weird compared to the N64 baseball game. But I figured that was only because PS1 was 32 bit and N64 was 64 bit and thus N64 could do twice as good graphics and such right?
When its all you know its different. Controls and graphics improve. When you get used to modern day things and try to play the old you see all the flaws and poor controls and visuals more. This mainly sticks out like a sore thumb with 3d polygon era. I think you are intentionally playing dumb to this argument. Of course its the same game, but your perspective is changed. The games are generally still playable, they just arent as good because youve played better and know better. They can still be fun, but by not aging well they are meaning they arent as good as they remember. At the time you didnt know better. They were new. Its really not that hard a concept to understand.
As I mentioned in my own topic on this issue, I mostly don't understand the age well concept at all...it's the same game now as it was then right?
It sure is. I don't get when people say HD remakes look "How you remember they looked back then". They sure as hell don't!
As I mentioned in my own topic on this issue, I mostly don't understand the age well concept at all...it's the same game now as it was then right? Still, even during the 5th gen (late 90s) when I was on vacation in Florida with the baseball team (I was student manager) and they had both a PS1 and N64 and I thought the PS1 baseball game looked all jaggedy and weird compared to the N64 baseball game. But I figured that was only because PS1 was 32 bit and N64 was 64 bit and thus N64 could do twice as good graphics and such right?
When its all you know its different. Controls and graphics improve. When you get used to modern day things and try to play the old you see all the flaws and poor controls and visuals more. This mainly sticks out like a sore thumb with 3d polygon era. I think you are intentionally playing dumb to this argument. Of course its the same game, but your perspective is changed. The games are generally still playable, they just arent as good because youve played better and know better. They can still be fun, but by not aging well they are meaning they arent as good as they remember. At the time you didnt know better. They were new. Its really not that hard a concept to understand.
yup. Remember how awesome flip phones were? "Holy shit it has a camera now!" Would you use one today, knowing there are smartphones? Why not? It's still the same phone that was awesome back then
Originally posted by: empire
The opposite of Goldeneye 64
We get it, you hate the N64. That has nothing to do with whether a game ages well or not.
Haha, I come across as a dick when it comes to N64 stuff.
Not all it's games are bad. I prefer the original Banjo Kazooie over the shitty HD remake that made it way too easy to 100% each level.
yup. Remember how awesome flip phones were? "Holy shit it has a camera now!" Would you use one today, knowing there are smartphones? Why not? It's still the same phone that was awesome back then
Nice try but the camera is obviously a lot better now than then. But with games its very different. Because no two games are exactly alike and only a tiny fraction of those games get re-released on the virtual console, PS store, or whatnot.
And yes that's all the more reason I'm so confused about all these smartphones and plans, how would you know which phone and which plan is the best? At least with game consoles you know exactly what you're getting and each one has a very different library of games, including many exclusives that you can't get anywhere else.