I agree with Arch. There are games like FF6 that I'm sure are great, but I'll never play through the whole thing because I don't have 30-40 hours to dedicate to it. Meanwhile Chrono Trigger is at a comfortable ~20 hours, I could see myself actually taking the time to play that. While I haven't played FF6, that time dedication isn't realistic to me, and I'd argue that is a sign of not aging well.
I have problems using the term "dated" too. Makes little sense to me.
The only thing I could imagine being "dated" is graphics.
Lots of game mechanics can feel "dated".
For instance, within a matter of years, the mechanics of Dragon Warrior 1 felt horribly dated compared to how things were streamlined in Dragon Warrior 2.
(i.e. most glaringly, needing to go to a menu and select "stairs" to go up-or-down stairs)
Across generations, it is even worse, when you're considering early character and camera control in 3D games (on PS1 and N64) versus modern 3D games.
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
I agree with you, but people's views of them DO change over time. As a very young kid I thought 10-yard Fight was awesome, but that's only because I didn't know any better.
I personally think Goldeneye 64 is boring, even on release it didn't really do anything for me. I had already played the PC FPS staples like Doom, Quake, and Duke Nukem 3D, etc to death by the time it came out and it was nothing special to me at all. A mediocre game that was very popular for a console crowd that was new to the genre and didn't know any better. Same shit with Halo a generation later. Some people just aren't willing to take off the rose colored glasses and be objective though.
I agree with you even though I like GE. The only reasons I might not find it as enjoyable today is like what you said about 10 Yard Fight; I simply didn't understand the game's limitations and exploits when I was younger - That, and the the fact I've beat the game to a pulp.
About MK and other games, while some things have 'held up', I still remember being bored of the game pretty quick and finding it very slow paced back in the day. Hell, all I did was play 'test your might' most of the time, which is still hilarious to this day in my opinon. I dunno, once the novelty of the fatalities wore off, the game didn't have much to offer. MK II on the other hand...
Anyway, at this point people are basically just arguing in circles about their opinions of games (subjective) and how we remember them (also subjective).
I never liked Golden Eye, still dont.
There is a difference between games that are dated and just being bad.
I think the point pegboy was getting across was that Goldeneye was never good, just took people a while to notice, which is equivalent to saying it hasn't aged well. Also you already said you agreed with him
Take the movie out of that time and show it to a modern audience and things that used to be shocking or scandalous are now completely ridiculous, because we are different people than those the film was made for in the first place.
Happens with theatre, too. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and Veronica's Room were exceedingly shocking for their day (60s and 70s), but time has blunted their impact considerably.
Well, and to put the theatre thing back onto movies... pretty much any movie that involves actors acting and speaking as if they were on stage, is going to feel very dated compared to what modern audiences are used to.
Take the movie out of that time and show it to a modern audience and things that used to be shocking or scandalous are now completely ridiculous, because we are different people than those the film was made for in the first place.
Happens with theatre, too. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and Veronica's Room were exceedingly shocking for their day (60s and 70s), but time has blunted their impact considerably.
Well, and to put the theatre thing back onto movies... pretty much any movie that involves actors acting and speaking as if they were on stage, is going to feel very dated compared to what modern audiences are used to.
Heh, I was just thinking that when watching the original Star Trek series where they remastered all the space scenes. The shots of the ship look modern and awesome, but then it goes back to sets shot in the sixties and stunt doubles that look nothing like William Shatner. It's so distractingly bad it's hilarious.
Take the movie out of that time and show it to a modern audience and things that used to be shocking or scandalous are now completely ridiculous, because we are different people than those the film was made for in the first place.
Happens with theatre, too. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and Veronica's Room were exceedingly shocking for their day (60s and 70s), but time has blunted their impact considerably.
Well, and to put the theatre thing back onto movies... pretty much any movie that involves actors acting and speaking as if they were on stage, is going to feel very dated compared to what modern audiences are used to.
Heh, I was just thinking that when watching the original Star Trek series where they remastered all the space scenes. The shots of the ship look modern and awesome, but then it goes back to sets shot in the sixties and stunt doubles that look nothing like William Shatner. It's so distractingly bad it's hilarious.
I suspect that Star Trek was pretty campy in that way, to begin with, even to original audiences, hence decades of jokes about campy sci-fi and the existence of movies like Galaxy Quest.
It was just a fun enough show to make it worth watching, despite the campiness.
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
Alright, this is my last attempt at an explanation. You are correct, the code didn't change. Just like a reel of film doesn't change. But the experience does change:
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
Alright, this is my last attempt at an explanation. Your are correct, the code didn't change. Just like a reel of film doesn't change. But the human experience does change:
Im going to have to disagree with you on SF64. Super Starfox, absolutely, but there hasn't been a solid game like Star Fox that has imporved upon it. Maybe Sin and Punishment is a better on rails shooter, but different enough.
Don't take it too literally, its just a rough sketch thrown together trying to explain the concept. If you want to straighten out the SF64 line a bit that's fine as it should be less angled than Goldeneye for sure.
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
Alright, this is my last attempt at an explanation. Your are correct, the code didn't change. Just like a reel of film doesn't change. But the human experience does change:
Im going to have to disagree with you on SF64. Super Starfox, absolutely, but there hasn't been a solid game like Star Fox that has imporved upon it. Maybe Sin and Punishment is a better on rails shooter, but different enough.
This may be a critical point of distinction.
I suspect a lot of people consider Star Fox to be a space-flight shooter -- which has MANY MANY much better games in the genre.
But if you accept and realize that it is just a space-themed on-rails shooter, then it is a different thing entirely.
Im going to have to disagree with you on SF64. Super Starfox, absolutely, but there hasn't been a solid game like Star Fox that has imporved upon it. Maybe Sin and Punishment is a better on rails shooter, but different enough.
This may be a critical point of distinction.
I suspect a lot of people consider Star Fox to be a space-flight shooter -- which has MANY MANY much better games in the genre.
But if you accept and realize that it is just a space-themed on-rails shooter, then it is a different thing entirely.
Yeah, my main criteria for how well something has aged, is if something better has come along and replaced it. For star fox 64, I see it as an on rails shooter, set in space. You have all kinds of great on rails shooters out there, the afformentioned S&P, House of the Dead, Time Crisis, to name a few. But all of these games have varying themes, and minor differences in the gameplay, where they can each stand on their own. One doesn't necessarily replace another. Meanwhile why would I play Star Fox on SNES when Star Fox on N64 is way better
Don't get too hung up on Star Fox 64, I was just trying to explain the concept. Different games age at different rates, or have aged in different amounts. Star Fox 64 IMO will age faster than Saturn Bomberman but slower than Goldeneye, with most people
I still consider it a top 25 game of all-time as it was the first N64 game I got, and the multiplayer was always terrible so that hasn't really affected me. So for bert and I, the line is angled closer to Saturn Bomberman than Goldeneye.
Star Fox has aged terribly, for many reasons, one of which is it was basically re-made into Miyamoto's full vision with Star Fox 64.
SF64 could of also been eclipsed too, but every attempt after that failed. Star Fox Command, Assault, Adventures, and (by all acounts) the Wii U ones basically range from mediocre to shit. So SF64's star has never really tarnished in that regard.
Star Fox has aged terribly, for many reasons, one of which is it was basically re-made into Miyamoto's full vision with Star Fox 64.
SF64 could of also been eclipsed too, but every attempt after that failed. Star Fox Command, Assault, Adventures, and (by all acounts) the Wii U ones basically range from mediocre to shit. So SF64's star has never really tarnished in that regard.
that's what I'm saying! If there isn't something out there that serves the same niche, but does it better, the game has aged well. Nobody has had a better take on that style of game.
Which also gives me another point about the subject, regarding genres. Some people will gravitate to one genre over another. So if I like 3D platformers a lot, I've played the Mario's and Banjos to a pulp, maybe I'll be more inclined to try another game in the genre that hasn't aged as well, such as DK 64. If it's a genre I really like, I'm more tolerant to the aspects of the game that have aged poorly. That doesn't mean I will ignore it's faults. However if I'm not big on RPGs, I'm not ever going to play all the good ones, maybe to get my RPG fix I'd rather play one of the top tier games in the genre like Chrono Trigger, and avoid the lesser titles. While we have our genres we prefer, that doesn't mean we'll never feel like trying something different, when we need something to fill that niche, it's better to go to a game that has aged better.
I can kind of see the point of using the term "not aged well" when it comes to finding early genre games not as intuitive as modern genre games. For example, people who are used to playing modern FPS and 3rd person shooter games may have a tough time adjusting to Wolfenstein and Doom or the early Resident Evil games. Also, I can see the camera placement on early 3D games (Playstation, Ultra 64 era) being a difficult thing to deal with for those accustomed to modern games.
But most of the time when I hear someone use the term "not aged well" it is in response to an older game's graphics, and that is just being a graphics snob as opposed to actually caring about the gameplay.
Star Fox has aged terribly, for many reasons, one of which is it was basically re-made into Miyamoto's full vision with Star Fox 64.
SF64 could of also been eclipsed too, but every attempt after that failed. Star Fox Command, Assault, Adventures, and (by all acounts) the Wii U ones basically range from mediocre to shit. So SF64's star has never really tarnished in that regard.
I earned the highest medals on every stage of Star Fox 64 and loved it to death, but my opinion on it dropped drastically over the years.
Part of it is that I stopped seeing the cinematics as novel and started seeing them as clichéd rip-offs of Independance Day, Star Wars, etc. I stopped thinking that it was a good thing for the score to sound like a John Williams movie and started wishing it was more exciting like the rock music in the original game. Yes, the tunes were the same, but the first game's scramble and victory music that got me pumped at the beginning and after completing a stage was just blah "movie music" in Star Fox 64.
I still feel that Star Fox 64 is the better game, I just wish it didn't rely so much on the gimmicks of ripping off popular movie cinematics/music, which limited the lasting appeal somewhat (no longer novel/cool due to normalization). I'd love to see it remastered to be more similar in spirit to the first game. More Top Gun/A-Team/SWAT Kats: The Radical Squadron than Star Wars/ID4: Independance Day/Stargate if you get my drift.
Hah, even at the time I realized the one level was a direct rip-off of Independence Day.
And the first battle against Star Wolf was the coolest thing of all time to me when I was young. Now its pretty laughably easy, which takes away from the epicness a bit
Alright, this is my last attempt at an explanation. You are correct, the code didn't change. Just like a reel of film doesn't change. But the experience does change:
That concept I understand, you have proved people are shallow and are not willing to abstract their perception of video games to appreciate them appropriately.
My view of games is very anachronistic and individual. I judge games by their immediate contemporaries and the hardware they were released on. I don't compare everything to modern PS4 and Xbone games because that would be incredibly shortsighted and older games are genuinely better, but that's just me.
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
Actually, one more thought on Star Fox
Star Fox has aged terribly, for many reasons, one of which is it was basically re-made into Miyamoto's full vision with Star Fox 64.
SF64 could of also been eclipsed too, but every attempt after that failed. Star Fox Command, Assault, Adventures, and (by all acounts) the Wii U ones basically range from mediocre to shit. So SF64's star has never really tarnished in that regard.
Star Fox SNES > Star Fox 64, for all the reasons CZroe stated. Also, I'd like to add that Star Fox SNES is far more difficult and challenging than Star Fox 64. I never thought SF64 was all that satisfying. F-Zero X is a lot better comparatively speaking.
That concept I understand, you have proved people are shallow and are not willing to abstract their perception of video games to appreciate them appropriately.
My view of games is very anachronistic and individual. I judge games by their immediate contemporaries and the hardware they were released on. I don't compare everything to modern PS4 and Xbone games because that would be incredibly shortsighted and older games are genuinely better, but that's just me.
I don't know why you keep using the word shallow. And I have literally never even seen a PS4 or XBONE in action, much less played one. Not to mention that I've probably cleared around 200 games this year and 80-90% of those were SNES and NES, so I think my appreciation is more than ample, and that your strawman ain't gonna work.
As far as I'm concerned, "aged well" is purely subjective and may differ from person to person. However, like many subjective things, the opinion held by the masses will generally be taken as "fact" whether that is true or not.
Personally, I don't really think any of the early 3D games have aged well at all. They all have pretty substantial flaws that back then we didn't fully realize or go crazy over simply because we didn't know that those "problems" could be corrected. (Problems such as very low polygon count on 3D models, accurate and precise control of 3D objects, resolution of textures, proper hitboxes and clipping, etc. Things that were eventually corrected with higher powered hardware and more experience in coding 3D games).
i like to take the analogy of television. Standard Definition TV NEVER really looked poor quality to us. It was just how TV was. Now, if you're like me, you really can't watch SD TV as it looks too muddled and unclear. So for me, SD TV hasn't aged well at all.
A game like Goldeneye is still fun to play, but graphically it hasn't aged too well. Yes, it has ALWAYS looked this blocky and low-resolution, but when it was released it was about the best you could get so it didn't appear as nasty.
Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the early 3D era in videogames was kind of fugly and didn't get cleared up until the PS2 generation.
I don't know why you keep using the word shallow. And I have literally never even seen a PS4 or XBONE in action, much less played one. Not to mention that I've probably cleared around 200 games this year and 80-90% of those were SNES and NES, so I think my appreciation is more than ample, and that your strawman ain't gonna work.
I stand by my chart. The concept is sound.
The chart doesn't apply to everyone.
The part in bold tells me you just don't like early 3D games. Why don't you just say that instead of using "aged poorly" as an excuse for your opinion?
I don't know why you keep using the word shallow. And I have literally never even seen a PS4 or XBONE in action, much less played one. Not to mention that I've probably cleared around 200 games this year and 80-90% of those were SNES and NES, so I think my appreciation is more than ample, and that your strawman ain't gonna work.
I stand by my chart. The concept is sound.
The chart doesn't apply to everyone.
The part in bold tells me you just don't like early 3D games. Why don't you just say that instead of using "aged poorly" as an excuse for your opinion?
Yeah, the key here is everybody's chart is going to look completely different. Video game 'aging' is a highly opinionated and individualized concept.
Hah, even at the time I realized the one level was a direct rip-off of Independence Day.
And the first battle against Star Wolf was the coolest thing of all time to me when I was young. Now its pretty laughably easy, which takes away from the epicness a bit
Same here, but that's what I thought was cool about it at the time. I remember sharing my Star Fox 64 preview VHS with my friends and saying "See? Just like Independence Day!"
I thought that it was cool enough seeing that kind of scene in a theater, but seeing it in games was even more "awesome." Eventually I grew to dislike the movie and expect more originality from my games, so I also realized how clichéd everything else in the game was. I feel the same way about the Peter Pan stuff in Ocarina of Time. Shigeru actually brags about taking such "inspiration," but I groan. Perhaps it's a bit more obscure in Japan and that increases the mystique, like the story that inspired Twilight Princess.
South Park made an episode about people like me growing up to be cynical, but I prefer to see it as being more discriminating.
I don't know why you keep using the word shallow. And I have literally never even seen a PS4 or XBONE in action, much less played one. Not to mention that I've probably cleared around 200 games this year and 80-90% of those were SNES and NES, so I think my appreciation is more than ample, and that your strawman ain't gonna work.
I stand by my chart. The concept is sound.
The chart doesn't apply to everyone.
The part in bold tells me you just don't like early 3D games. Why don't you just say that instead of using "aged poorly" as an excuse for your opinion?
Yeah, the key here is everybody's chart is going to look completely different. Video game 'aging' is a highly opinionated and individualized concept.
Yeah, obviously
Super Mario Bros. and Metal Gear Solid and Ocarina of Time and Half Life 2 and Bioshock are great games. That's not a fact, that's just an opinion. But you can also say that is objectively the consensus. That's how media/culture works.
That was not my graph, that was my best approximation as to the general sentiment on those titles. And that was again just a quick example to try and explain the concept.
And once again, guntz is trying to pin this on other people's inabilties to enjoy certain eras of gaming, or certain genres, or whatever other bias he can cling too. I still enjoy Super Mario 64 much more than the average person, and nearly as much as I did in day 1. So I'm calling BS on that reasoning too. But early 3D is ripe with examples of games that have aged poorly because of the reasons discussed ad naseum in this thread.
I tire of this. Most people get it. Some have to argue because they're contrarians, or are too sensitive to any perceived slight to something they cherish.
And judging by the PMs I've gotten, this is already well-tread area with guntz
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
But it isn't a threat to the history of video games at all, and the expression is used for other things, hence why the windmills reference.
I think what I'm trying to say is that I actually agree with your second statement, but it still doesn't mean that saying a game 'has aged well or not' has no meaning for explaining a personal impression.
Doesn't get the "aged well" idiom, doesn't get "fighting windmills." I'm convinced Guntz is related to Drax the Destroyer.
"His people are completely literal. Metaphors are going to go over his head."
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast. I would catch it."
That's funny, I need to remember that quote when the occasion comes up.
I knew full well what he meant by windmills, Don Quixote fights them which is a metaphor for fighting something completely pointless. I ignored it because it was frankly kind of offensive. "Aged well" when applied to video games is a retarded idiom, both because they cannot age and because it's completely subjective. How can something age well or poorly when nobody can agree on it?
You guys may not remember, but there was a time when people thought the NES and other older 2D consoles had aged poorly. That was mostly back when 3D was very new up to the Gamecube era.
Given how fickle people can be, I fail to see how the "aged well" idiom is worth using in any capacity related to video games.
Comments
I have problems using the term "dated" too. Makes little sense to me.
The only thing I could imagine being "dated" is graphics.
Lots of game mechanics can feel "dated".
For instance, within a matter of years, the mechanics of Dragon Warrior 1 felt horribly dated compared to how things were streamlined in Dragon Warrior 2.
(i.e. most glaringly, needing to go to a menu and select "stairs" to go up-or-down stairs)
Across generations, it is even worse, when you're considering early character and camera control in 3D games (on PS1 and N64) versus modern 3D games.
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
I agree with you, but people's views of them DO change over time. As a very young kid I thought 10-yard Fight was awesome, but that's only because I didn't know any better.
I personally think Goldeneye 64 is boring, even on release it didn't really do anything for me. I had already played the PC FPS staples like Doom, Quake, and Duke Nukem 3D, etc to death by the time it came out and it was nothing special to me at all. A mediocre game that was very popular for a console crowd that was new to the genre and didn't know any better. Same shit with Halo a generation later. Some people just aren't willing to take off the rose colored glasses and be objective though.
I agree with you even though I like GE. The only reasons I might not find it as enjoyable today is like what you said about 10 Yard Fight; I simply didn't understand the game's limitations and exploits when I was younger - That, and the the fact I've beat the game to a pulp.
About MK and other games, while some things have 'held up', I still remember being bored of the game pretty quick and finding it very slow paced back in the day. Hell, all I did was play 'test your might' most of the time, which is still hilarious to this day in my opinon. I dunno, once the novelty of the fatalities wore off, the game didn't have much to offer. MK II on the other hand...
Anyway, at this point people are basically just arguing in circles about their opinions of games (subjective) and how we remember them (also subjective).
I never liked Golden Eye, still dont.
There is a difference between games that are dated and just being bad.
I think the point pegboy was getting across was that Goldeneye was never good, just took people a while to notice, which is equivalent to saying it hasn't aged well. Also you already said you agreed with him
Take the movie out of that time and show it to a modern audience and things that used to be shocking or scandalous are now completely ridiculous, because we are different people than those the film was made for in the first place.
Happens with theatre, too. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and Veronica's Room were exceedingly shocking for their day (60s and 70s), but time has blunted their impact considerably.
Well, and to put the theatre thing back onto movies... pretty much any movie that involves actors acting and speaking as if they were on stage, is going to feel very dated compared to what modern audiences are used to.
Take the movie out of that time and show it to a modern audience and things that used to be shocking or scandalous are now completely ridiculous, because we are different people than those the film was made for in the first place.
Happens with theatre, too. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and Veronica's Room were exceedingly shocking for their day (60s and 70s), but time has blunted their impact considerably.
Well, and to put the theatre thing back onto movies... pretty much any movie that involves actors acting and speaking as if they were on stage, is going to feel very dated compared to what modern audiences are used to.
Heh, I was just thinking that when watching the original Star Trek series where they remastered all the space scenes. The shots of the ship look modern and awesome, but then it goes back to sets shot in the sixties and stunt doubles that look nothing like William Shatner. It's so distractingly bad it's hilarious.
Take the movie out of that time and show it to a modern audience and things that used to be shocking or scandalous are now completely ridiculous, because we are different people than those the film was made for in the first place.
Happens with theatre, too. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and Veronica's Room were exceedingly shocking for their day (60s and 70s), but time has blunted their impact considerably.
Well, and to put the theatre thing back onto movies... pretty much any movie that involves actors acting and speaking as if they were on stage, is going to feel very dated compared to what modern audiences are used to.
Heh, I was just thinking that when watching the original Star Trek series where they remastered all the space scenes. The shots of the ship look modern and awesome, but then it goes back to sets shot in the sixties and stunt doubles that look nothing like William Shatner. It's so distractingly bad it's hilarious.
I suspect that Star Trek was pretty campy in that way, to begin with, even to original audiences, hence decades of jokes about campy sci-fi and the existence of movies like Galaxy Quest.
It was just a fun enough show to make it worth watching, despite the campiness.
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
Alright, this is my last attempt at an explanation. You are correct, the code didn't change. Just like a reel of film doesn't change. But the experience does change:
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
Alright, this is my last attempt at an explanation. Your are correct, the code didn't change. Just like a reel of film doesn't change. But the human experience does change:
Im going to have to disagree with you on SF64. Super Starfox, absolutely, but there hasn't been a solid game like Star Fox that has imporved upon it. Maybe Sin and Punishment is a better on rails shooter, but different enough.
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
Alright, this is my last attempt at an explanation. Your are correct, the code didn't change. Just like a reel of film doesn't change. But the human experience does change:
Im going to have to disagree with you on SF64. Super Starfox, absolutely, but there hasn't been a solid game like Star Fox that has imporved upon it. Maybe Sin and Punishment is a better on rails shooter, but different enough.
This may be a critical point of distinction.
I suspect a lot of people consider Star Fox to be a space-flight shooter -- which has MANY MANY much better games in the genre.
But if you accept and realize that it is just a space-themed on-rails shooter, then it is a different thing entirely.
Im going to have to disagree with you on SF64. Super Starfox, absolutely, but there hasn't been a solid game like Star Fox that has imporved upon it. Maybe Sin and Punishment is a better on rails shooter, but different enough.
This may be a critical point of distinction.
I suspect a lot of people consider Star Fox to be a space-flight shooter -- which has MANY MANY much better games in the genre.
But if you accept and realize that it is just a space-themed on-rails shooter, then it is a different thing entirely.
Yeah, my main criteria for how well something has aged, is if something better has come along and replaced it. For star fox 64, I see it as an on rails shooter, set in space. You have all kinds of great on rails shooters out there, the afformentioned S&P, House of the Dead, Time Crisis, to name a few. But all of these games have varying themes, and minor differences in the gameplay, where they can each stand on their own. One doesn't necessarily replace another. Meanwhile why would I play Star Fox on SNES when Star Fox on N64 is way better
I still consider it a top 25 game of all-time as it was the first N64 game I got, and the multiplayer was always terrible so that hasn't really affected me. So for bert and I, the line is angled closer to Saturn Bomberman than Goldeneye.
Star Fox has aged terribly, for many reasons, one of which is it was basically re-made into Miyamoto's full vision with Star Fox 64.
SF64 could of also been eclipsed too, but every attempt after that failed. Star Fox Command, Assault, Adventures, and (by all acounts) the Wii U ones basically range from mediocre to shit. So SF64's star has never really tarnished in that regard.
Actually, one more thought on Star Fox
Star Fox has aged terribly, for many reasons, one of which is it was basically re-made into Miyamoto's full vision with Star Fox 64.
SF64 could of also been eclipsed too, but every attempt after that failed. Star Fox Command, Assault, Adventures, and (by all acounts) the Wii U ones basically range from mediocre to shit. So SF64's star has never really tarnished in that regard.
that's what I'm saying! If there isn't something out there that serves the same niche, but does it better, the game has aged well. Nobody has had a better take on that style of game.
Which also gives me another point about the subject, regarding genres. Some people will gravitate to one genre over another. So if I like 3D platformers a lot, I've played the Mario's and Banjos to a pulp, maybe I'll be more inclined to try another game in the genre that hasn't aged as well, such as DK 64. If it's a genre I really like, I'm more tolerant to the aspects of the game that have aged poorly. That doesn't mean I will ignore it's faults. However if I'm not big on RPGs, I'm not ever going to play all the good ones, maybe to get my RPG fix I'd rather play one of the top tier games in the genre like Chrono Trigger, and avoid the lesser titles. While we have our genres we prefer, that doesn't mean we'll never feel like trying something different, when we need something to fill that niche, it's better to go to a game that has aged better.
But most of the time when I hear someone use the term "not aged well" it is in response to an older game's graphics, and that is just being a graphics snob as opposed to actually caring about the gameplay.
Actually, one more thought on Star Fox
Star Fox has aged terribly, for many reasons, one of which is it was basically re-made into Miyamoto's full vision with Star Fox 64.
SF64 could of also been eclipsed too, but every attempt after that failed. Star Fox Command, Assault, Adventures, and (by all acounts) the Wii U ones basically range from mediocre to shit. So SF64's star has never really tarnished in that regard.
I earned the highest medals on every stage of Star Fox 64 and loved it to death, but my opinion on it dropped drastically over the years.
Part of it is that I stopped seeing the cinematics as novel and started seeing them as clichéd rip-offs of Independance Day, Star Wars, etc. I stopped thinking that it was a good thing for the score to sound like a John Williams movie and started wishing it was more exciting like the rock music in the original game. Yes, the tunes were the same, but the first game's scramble and victory music that got me pumped at the beginning and after completing a stage was just blah "movie music" in Star Fox 64.
I still feel that Star Fox 64 is the better game, I just wish it didn't rely so much on the gimmicks of ripping off popular movie cinematics/music, which limited the lasting appeal somewhat (no longer novel/cool due to normalization). I'd love to see it remastered to be more similar in spirit to the first game. More Top Gun/A-Team/SWAT Kats: The Radical Squadron than Star Wars/ID4: Independance Day/Stargate if you get my drift.
And the first battle against Star Wolf was the coolest thing of all time to me when I was young. Now its pretty laughably easy, which takes away from the epicness a bit
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
Alright, this is my last attempt at an explanation. You are correct, the code didn't change. Just like a reel of film doesn't change. But the experience does change:
That concept I understand, you have proved people are shallow and are not willing to abstract their perception of video games to appreciate them appropriately.
My view of games is very anachronistic and individual. I judge games by their immediate contemporaries and the hardware they were released on. I don't compare everything to modern PS4 and Xbone games because that would be incredibly shortsighted and older games are genuinely better, but that's just me.
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
Actually, one more thought on Star Fox
Star Fox has aged terribly, for many reasons, one of which is it was basically re-made into Miyamoto's full vision with Star Fox 64.
SF64 could of also been eclipsed too, but every attempt after that failed. Star Fox Command, Assault, Adventures, and (by all acounts) the Wii U ones basically range from mediocre to shit. So SF64's star has never really tarnished in that regard.
Star Fox SNES > Star Fox 64, for all the reasons CZroe stated. Also, I'd like to add that Star Fox SNES is far more difficult and challenging than Star Fox 64. I never thought SF64 was all that satisfying. F-Zero X is a lot better comparatively speaking.
That concept I understand, you have proved people are shallow and are not willing to abstract their perception of video games to appreciate them appropriately.
My view of games is very anachronistic and individual. I judge games by their immediate contemporaries and the hardware they were released on. I don't compare everything to modern PS4 and Xbone games because that would be incredibly shortsighted and older games are genuinely better, but that's just me.
I don't know why you keep using the word shallow. And I have literally never even seen a PS4 or XBONE in action, much less played one. Not to mention that I've probably cleared around 200 games this year and 80-90% of those were SNES and NES, so I think my appreciation is more than ample, and that your strawman ain't gonna work.
I stand by my chart. The concept is sound.
Personally, I don't really think any of the early 3D games have aged well at all. They all have pretty substantial flaws that back then we didn't fully realize or go crazy over simply because we didn't know that those "problems" could be corrected. (Problems such as very low polygon count on 3D models, accurate and precise control of 3D objects, resolution of textures, proper hitboxes and clipping, etc. Things that were eventually corrected with higher powered hardware and more experience in coding 3D games).
i like to take the analogy of television. Standard Definition TV NEVER really looked poor quality to us. It was just how TV was. Now, if you're like me, you really can't watch SD TV as it looks too muddled and unclear. So for me, SD TV hasn't aged well at all.
A game like Goldeneye is still fun to play, but graphically it hasn't aged too well. Yes, it has ALWAYS looked this blocky and low-resolution, but when it was released it was about the best you could get so it didn't appear as nasty.
Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the early 3D era in videogames was kind of fugly and didn't get cleared up until the PS2 generation.
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
I don't know why you keep using the word shallow. And I have literally never even seen a PS4 or XBONE in action, much less played one. Not to mention that I've probably cleared around 200 games this year and 80-90% of those were SNES and NES, so I think my appreciation is more than ample, and that your strawman ain't gonna work.
I stand by my chart. The concept is sound.
The chart doesn't apply to everyone.
The part in bold tells me you just don't like early 3D games. Why don't you just say that instead of using "aged poorly" as an excuse for your opinion?
I don't know why you keep using the word shallow. And I have literally never even seen a PS4 or XBONE in action, much less played one. Not to mention that I've probably cleared around 200 games this year and 80-90% of those were SNES and NES, so I think my appreciation is more than ample, and that your strawman ain't gonna work.
I stand by my chart. The concept is sound.
The chart doesn't apply to everyone.
The part in bold tells me you just don't like early 3D games. Why don't you just say that instead of using "aged poorly" as an excuse for your opinion?
Yeah, the key here is everybody's chart is going to look completely different. Video game 'aging' is a highly opinionated and individualized concept.
Hah, even at the time I realized the one level was a direct rip-off of Independence Day.
And the first battle against Star Wolf was the coolest thing of all time to me when I was young. Now its pretty laughably easy, which takes away from the epicness a bit
Same here, but that's what I thought was cool about it at the time. I remember sharing my Star Fox 64 preview VHS with my friends and saying "See? Just like Independence Day!"
I thought that it was cool enough seeing that kind of scene in a theater, but seeing it in games was even more "awesome." Eventually I grew to dislike the movie and expect more originality from my games, so I also realized how clichéd everything else in the game was. I feel the same way about the Peter Pan stuff in Ocarina of Time. Shigeru actually brags about taking such "inspiration," but I groan. Perhaps it's a bit more obscure in Japan and that increases the mystique, like the story that inspired Twilight Princess.
South Park made an episode about people like me growing up to be cynical, but I prefer to see it as being more discriminating.
I don't know why you keep using the word shallow. And I have literally never even seen a PS4 or XBONE in action, much less played one. Not to mention that I've probably cleared around 200 games this year and 80-90% of those were SNES and NES, so I think my appreciation is more than ample, and that your strawman ain't gonna work.
I stand by my chart. The concept is sound.
The chart doesn't apply to everyone.
The part in bold tells me you just don't like early 3D games. Why don't you just say that instead of using "aged poorly" as an excuse for your opinion?
Yeah, the key here is everybody's chart is going to look completely different. Video game 'aging' is a highly opinionated and individualized concept.
Yeah, obviously
Super Mario Bros. and Metal Gear Solid and Ocarina of Time and Half Life 2 and Bioshock are great games. That's not a fact, that's just an opinion. But you can also say that is objectively the consensus. That's how media/culture works.
That was not my graph, that was my best approximation as to the general sentiment on those titles. And that was again just a quick example to try and explain the concept.
And once again, guntz is trying to pin this on other people's inabilties to enjoy certain eras of gaming, or certain genres, or whatever other bias he can cling too. I still enjoy Super Mario 64 much more than the average person, and nearly as much as I did in day 1. So I'm calling BS on that reasoning too. But early 3D is ripe with examples of games that have aged poorly because of the reasons discussed ad naseum in this thread.
I tire of this. Most people get it. Some have to argue because they're contrarians, or are too sensitive to any perceived slight to something they cherish.
And judging by the PMs I've gotten, this is already well-tread area with guntz
Some have to argue because they're contrarians,
I never understood that attitude. Like, what the hell are they trying to prove?
Some have to argue because they're contrarians,
I never understood that attitude. Like, what the hell are they trying to prove?
I would say Cirellio is a contrarian, in fact I would say he is a proud contrarian. I mean that in the nicest possible way
Some have to argue because they're contrarians
Not true.
Some have to argue because they're contrarians
Not true.
I see what you did there.
Originally posted by: Tulpa
Originally posted by: guillavoie
Originally posted by: Guntz
If it means defending the history of the greatest entertainment medium of all time, I will fight those windmills.
Time is little more than a human construct, video games are either good or bad forever, time does not change that.
But it isn't a threat to the history of video games at all, and the expression is used for other things, hence why the windmills reference.
I think what I'm trying to say is that I actually agree with your second statement, but it still doesn't mean that saying a game 'has aged well or not' has no meaning for explaining a personal impression.
Doesn't get the "aged well" idiom, doesn't get "fighting windmills." I'm convinced Guntz is related to Drax the Destroyer.
"His people are completely literal. Metaphors are going to go over his head."
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast. I would catch it."
That's funny, I need to remember that quote when the occasion comes up.
You guys may not remember, but there was a time when people thought the NES and other older 2D consoles had aged poorly. That was mostly back when 3D was very new up to the Gamecube era.
Given how fickle people can be, I fail to see how the "aged well" idiom is worth using in any capacity related to video games.