To judge an old school game you need to judge it almost in isolation. A game either was or it wasn't good.
Unless it was one of the first of its kind to come out, or was otherwise seen as innovative at the time, and its approach was all we really knew (depending on its context.) We may not have seen the limitations it had because it was so novel, but improvements later highlighted shortcomings we either were willing to overlook or just didn't recognize. Kind of one of those "what is seen can't be unseen" type of deals.
Then it becomes a matter of whether the game has something else going for it. Some games do, some games don't.
According To guntz, we are all just too stupid to know what games we liked as kids and what games we still enjoy now. We just tricked ourselves as children. Those 100s of hours on the n64 clearing all cups, collecting every item on fetch quest 64 playformers, beating all the coin challenges and whizz pig on diddy kong racing. Yeah we just thought we liked those games.
Just smh
There is only one constant here, YOU changed, not the games you used to play. That's all I'm trying to say.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
According To guntz, we are all just too stupid to know what games we liked as kids and what games we still enjoy now. We just tricked ourselves as children. Those 100s of hours on the n64 clearing all cups, collecting every item on fetch quest 64 playformers, beating all the coin challenges and whizz pig on diddy kong racing. Yeah we just thought we liked those games.
Just smh
There is only one constant here, YOU changed, not the games you used to play. That's all I'm trying to say.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
And it's not shitting on a game to call it "dated" "hasn't aged well" or "it's a product of its time." We're recognizing the changes that have come since.
The Ford Model T got America motoring and introduced innovations in mass production. It's in museums and car shows. But no one wants one as a daily driver anymore. A Model T is too limited today. We've improved the car. We can still appreciate what it did.
In arts and literature, though, it is a criticism to say something is "dated" or "hasn't aged well". It means that it's so mired in the materials of its age, or in assumptions typical of the time, that it can't speak to any audience other than the one for which it was originally intended. It's full of the period's equivalent of fan-service and Family Guy cutaways.
When we deem certain things "timeless" or "universal", we often mean that they flatter us (don't make us feel stupid or alienated), fit nicely into our lifestyle, or have become socially accepted symbols whose popularity makes up most of their substance. Mozart or mid-period Miles Davis go nicely with our dinner party, and we feel like we understand them, so they're timeless.
Yet the alleged "timelessness" often has nothing to do with the actual material of the artwork: Greek statues were garishly painted, the Mona Lisa looks nothing like the original probably did, and Gregorian chants are religious invocations with a specific meaning, not lifestyle accompaniments for people when they want to feel "spiritual". People thought all kinds of stuff was timeless 50-70 years ago, and much of that has been completely forgotten.
I still don't like analogizing games to tools, because they're fundamentally different. But the Model T is an interesting example because it's both a tool and, for people who love vintage cars, a work of art (or at least craft) that's meant to be enjoyed.
As a tool, has a Model T been superseded? Sure, there are many faster and safer ways to get from Point A to Point B. As an aesthetic experience, though? Not at all: it's not like driving a Corvette or a Prius will make you say "Whoa, this is just like driving a Model T, but better in every way". So it'd be silly to say a Model T has "aged badly", because it's using the wrong metric: you're measuring something irrelevant.
I think my biggest problem with saying that things have "aged badly/well" is that it's often a subjective claim masquerading as an objective statement, and that it reminds me too much of teenagers trying to show that they're "above" something uncool. I still would rather see us use a phrase that puts the burden on ourselves and our changing needs, and views the past with a bit more sympathy.
And the subtext really does often seem to be "Haw haw, my past self was so stupid, progress is so great!", which is something I can't get on board with because it doesn't match my experience of the world: a lot of the time, "progress" is more double-edged than people realize, and what appears to be an Objective Improvement now -- a refutation of what came before, rendering the past unnecessary -- doesn't look so smart ten years later.
To me, a phrase like that reflects the wrong way of looking at things. It's got too much of the consumer about it -- pronouncing judgment, as though life is a buyer's guide and it's time to get new stuff -- and not enough of the sympathetic observer. And it's not as if the world needs more opinions right now.
According To guntz, we are all just too stupid to know what games we liked as kids and what games we still enjoy now. We just tricked ourselves as children. Those 100s of hours on the n64 clearing all cups, collecting every item on fetch quest 64 playformers, beating all the coin challenges and whizz pig on diddy kong racing. Yeah we just thought we liked those games.
Just smh
There is only one constant here, YOU changed, not the games you used to play. That's all I'm trying to say.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
typing quickly. I know the difference. dick
Most people actually know the difference. You're is harder to type than your and just like texting gets typed quickly incorrectly often. A typo is a typo.
According To guntz, we are all just too stupid to know what games we liked as kids and what games we still enjoy now. We just tricked ourselves as children. Those 100s of hours on the n64 clearing all cups, collecting every item on fetch quest 64 playformers, beating all the coin challenges and whizz pig on diddy kong racing. Yeah we just thought we liked those games.
Just smh
There is only one constant here, YOU changed, not the games you used to play. That's all I'm trying to say.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
typing quickly. I know the difference. dick
Yeah I am be careful in a post criticizing someone of low iq. You don't get the benefit of the doubt there
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
typing quickly. I know the difference. dick
Yeah I am be careful in a post criticizing someone of low iq. You don't get the benefit of the doubt there
It was just a saying that related to the discussion. Grammar nazi's are fucking annoying ass people. When reading a forum Im not looking for mistypes of your you're their there they're. It all reads the same when reading and typing quickly. People know what you mean.
My mom is a high school and university english teacher. Im well aware of it all. Probably alot more than a majority of you.
This little distraction you caused takes away from the point entirely. No one cares about a you're typo.
When typing on here, I am not trying to write a research paper or a published article.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
typing quickly. I know the difference. dick
Yeah I am be careful in a post criticizing someone of low iq. You don't get the benefit of the doubt there
It was just a saying that related to the discussion. Grammar nazi's are fucking annoying ass people. When reading a forum Im not looking for mistypes of your you're their there they're. It all reads the same when reading and typing quickly. People know what you mean.
My mom is a high school and university english teacher. Im well aware of it all. Probably alot more than a majority of you.
This little distraction you caused takes away from the point entirely. No one cares about a you're typo.
When typing on here, I am not trying to write a research paper or a published article.
A typo has nothing to do with IQ.
That's a very nice way of rationalizing and normalizing YOUR mistake. Always so defensive you are.
As a tool, has a Model T been superseded? Sure, there are many faster and safer ways to get from Point A to Point B. As an aesthetic experience, though? Not at all: it's not like driving a Corvette or a Prius will make you say "Whoa, this is just like driving a Model T, but better in every way". So it'd be silly to say a Model T has "aged badly", because it's using the wrong metric: you're measuring something irrelevant.
Have you ever actually driven a genuine Model T? I have, as my dad owned one briefly (he restored cars as a hobby.) They're a pain in the ass. Their gear/clutch setup is non-intuitive, and their crank start is an exercise in frustration. You get over the thrill pretty quick (and if you wanted to experience open top rattle traps, there are any number of kit cars that'll do that for you.) Even a lowly Prius is "better in every way" in terms of driving. So in that respect, the experience, it has "aged badly." You can set a Model T aside as a work of art, and they're kind of cool to say you've driven one, but if we're talking the actual experience, then yes, they've been superseded.
So much like games, which can be appreciated in their historical context but sadly must be compared to modern games to get the whole picture, the experience back then can be superseded by more advanced (cars, video games, whatever) in that sense.
Anyone can fire up GoldenEye and play it. It still plays now as it did in the late 90s, and some may even get enjoyment out of it. But if we're talking about the most advanced FPS experience, it was left behind years ago.
To judge an old school game you need to judge it almost in isolation. A game either was or it wasn't good.
Unless it was one of the first of its kind to come out, or was otherwise seen as innovative at the time, and its approach was all we really knew (depending on its context.) We may not have seen the limitations it had because it was so novel, but improvements later highlighted shortcomings we either were willing to overlook or just didn't recognize. Kind of one of those "what is seen can't be unseen" type of deals.
Then it becomes a matter of whether the game has something else going for it. Some games do, some games don't.
I think maybe another way to sum up the concept is that none of us (well, very few of us) are discussing truly objective "good" / "bad" as a binary rating.
Rather, it is a case of a spectrum, where many games, in their own time were "good ENOUGH", when there were limited options and fewer points of comparison.
It isn't that the game was " always bad". It is that its deficiencies, that at one time were tolerable or ignorable (for whatever reason) have ceased to be so (for any number of reasons).
I am sure that you only need to dig through a back issue of PC Gamer to see some games rated highly (at the time) that in retrospect are not worthy of their rating. (Same concept holds true for games on any system)
I think the defensiveness about this topic borders between amusing and flat out bizarre.
What you guys keep ignoring is to some of us, newest doesn't necessarily mean best. Heck, sometimes your best isn't the same as someone else's best.
Someone here said Mario Kart 64 as aged poorly, because they like newer Mario Karts better. I disagree, I think Mario Kart 64 is still an excellent installment in the series. I would rather play it over Mario Kart Wii or 7 any day. It's got a smoother challenge curve, its rubber-band effect is nowhere near as bad as it is in MKWii and the graphics/sound are far less intrusive and noisy. If Mario Kart 8 is anything like Wii and 7, I'll pass.
One of the things I dislike about nearly every modern game is they pollute your eyes and ears with excess. You ever play Pokemon Shuffle on 3DS? For a portable game, it sure loves explosive visuals and obnoxious sound effects. That's what's so nice about older games, especially the portable kind. You don't have to wait for stuff to load, or have to watch endless cutscenes or put up with noise pollution.
I think maybe another way to sum up the concept is that none of us (well, very few of us) are discussing truly objective "good" / "bad" as a binary rating.
Rather, it is a case of a spectrum, where many games, in their own time were "good ENOUGH", when there were limited options and fewer points of comparison.
It isn't that the game was " always bad". It is that its deficiencies, that at one time were tolerable or ignorable (for whatever reason) have ceased to be so (for any number of reasons).
I am sure that you only need to dig through a back issue of PC Gamer to see some games rated highly (at the time) that in retrospect are not worthy of their rating. (Same concept holds true for games on any system)
I totally agree. In some cases, it's not that the game was created with a deliberate flaw, it's that the "flaw" wasn't recognized as such until someone improved something and we went "Oh, that's a heck of a lot better." Or the flaw was noticed but we put up with it until someone came out of nowhere with something better.
Wrist-breaking Atari 2600 joysticks were considered the norm until Nintendo showed us the D-pad.
One of the things I dislike about nearly every modern game is they pollute your eyes and ears with excess. You ever play Pokemon Shuffle on 3DS? For a portable game, it sure loves explosive visuals and obnoxious sound effects.
That's by design. It's Nintendo's clever way of simulating a gambling environment, such as a casino. A lot of the newer slot machines have very similar effects, noises, and game mechanics. That, on top of the wait times and how time consuming it is to actually get coins without paying for them makes it a very devious freemium game.
Regardless, I see both arguments here. My two cents are that the games haven't changed, but expectations about how games should play, which are gained either by playing new games or growing older and wiser, have. I support this by pointing out that some genres of games have "aged well" because the expectations and measures of a "good" game in the genre was mostly the same as it is now: SHMUPS, 2D platformers, 2D fighters, RPGs, puzzle games, and so on. Similarly, genres in which games have "aged poorly" have typically seen a lot of new developments and changes: racing games, 3D action games, 3D fighters, realistic sports games, and so on.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
Insulting someone indirectly isn't helping your argument at all.
you programmed your own god damn super mario world game
We know your not stupid. That is why i said cmon man we know you are smarter than this.
I repeated a saying. We know your not dumb. Thats why you not getting anything 99 percent of us are saying is baffling.
Just because you personally dont like newer updates of n64 games, which isnt the norm. Imo Mario Kart 64 tracks are hella bland and nothing interesting about them in comparison to awesome mario kart 8 tracks. The control and handle of mario kart 8 is the sole reason that mario kart 64 hasnt aged well. So much smoother with skids and great cool track design such as the excitebike track and the fzero tracks. We know mario kart 64 is the same game. But, double dash and mario kart 8 didnt exist and we had no idea what better control and track design looked like.
If you understand my saying, we arent talking about literally aging. We are talking about holding up to todays games and still be just as enjoyable as we used to find them. We arent literally talking about the game changing. Its perspective. If you could just understand that, and realize you are the minority slim opinion here, then we can just drop it.
That's by design. It's Nintendo's clever way of simulating a gambling environment, such as a casino. A lot of the newer slot machines have very similar effects, noises, and game mechanics. That, on top of the wait times and how time consuming it is to actually get coins without paying for them makes it a very devious freemium game.
Yeah, I know it's a freemium game, that's not what I meant. Literally, pick ANY game made this decade. ANY platform. They ALL have visual and audible noise pollution. It's one of many reasons I'd rather play old games instead of newer ones.
The only reason why we can't settle on anything is that Guntz and cie, it seems, do not recognize that the figure of speech we're talking about is truly a way to word something that is not just plain bullshit. Someone can use the idiom stupidly, just like anyone can make bad jokes or wrong analogies. But the idiom itself is not meaningless per say, it can convey perfectly well thought out ideas.
What games are truly best will always be something debatable, and anyone personal preferences are justifiable in the end. It doesn't change the fact that 'aging poorly' has a meaning, it is not just a BS concept.
That's by design. It's Nintendo's clever way of simulating a gambling environment, such as a casino. A lot of the newer slot machines have very similar effects, noises, and game mechanics. That, on top of the wait times and how time consuming it is to actually get coins without paying for them makes it a very devious freemium game.
Yeah, I know it's a freemium game, that's not what I meant. Literally, pick ANY game made this decade. ANY platform. They ALL have visual and audible noise pollution. It's one of many reasons I'd rather play old games instead of newer ones.
Random example:
Clue us into whether this is hyperbole or if you genuinely believe this as a literal statement.
Just because you personally dont like newer updates of n64 games, which isnt the norm. Imo Mario Kart 64 tracks are hella bland and nothing interesting about them in comparison to awesome mario kart 8 tracks. The control and handle of mario kart 8 is the sole reason that mario kart 64 hasnt aged well. So much smoother with skids and great cool track design such as the excitebike track and the fzero tracks. We know mario kart 64 is the same game. But, double dash and mario kart 8 didnt exist and we had no idea what better control and track design looked like.
It's still little more than an opinion. It's not a fact that MK8 is better, it's just newer. I like MK64 more than most of its sequels (for the record, I also like Double Dash and DS). If you prefer newer over old, that's fine. I just think you guys aren't giving older games enough credit here.
Originally posted by: quest4nes
If you understand my saying, we arent talking about literally aging. We are talking about holding up to todays games and still be just as enjoyable as we used to find them. We arent literally talking about the game changing. Its perspective. If you could just understand that, and realize you are the minority slim opinion here, then we can just drop it.
Yes, I do understand the idiom. The games aren't literally aging.
What you and everyone else isn't understanding is you yourselves have changed. Newer games haven't made older games worse. It is your personal judgement and perception that does that. Not all of us like newer games.
Look at it this way, just because there's Resident Evil 4 with its fancy new controls, doesn't mean suddenly RE1 isn't playable. To your tastes, you would rather play RE4. To some of us, RE1 is still playable to this day regardless of its sequels.
The exact same thing can be said of good old Super Mario Bros. 1, to some it is VERY primtiive and can't possibly stand against its sequels. Yet so many here think otherwise. Isn't that proof that whether a game is made obsolete is really just a matter of perspective?
That's by design. It's Nintendo's clever way of simulating a gambling environment, such as a casino. A lot of the newer slot machines have very similar effects, noises, and game mechanics. That, on top of the wait times and how time consuming it is to actually get coins without paying for them makes it a very devious freemium game.
Yeah, I know it's a freemium game, that's not what I meant. Literally, pick ANY game made this decade. ANY platform. They ALL have visual and audible noise pollution. It's one of many reasons I'd rather play old games instead of newer ones.
That game's lighting is really hard on the eyes. In-game, the resolution makes everything too small and therefore also hard on the eyes.
Pick any PS4/Xbone game and it will most likely have way too much bloom lighting, ugh...
Well, but a casino is basically the definition of noise pollution, so games trying to emulate that environment will be that way, too.
Funny that you mention bloom lighting, because when I think of that and other games that hurt my eyes after a while due to brightness, I think of newer Zelda games, especially Wind Waker, and games that are cel shaded or shaded to resemble an anime, like One Piece games. Still play 'em though.
I can't speak to what games are hard on someone else's eyes, but what's always bothered mine are games that I have to really focus on the screen while playing for one reason or another. Typically, it's because they're too dark, like Tom Clancy games, or small and blurry, like most of Nintendo's earlier handheld games on the GB and GBC. To this day, I have to play them on either the Retron 5 or the GBA player because the screens Nintendo put in the GB and GBC hurt my eyes, even when I was little.
Clue us into whether this is hyperbole or if you genuinely believe this as a literal statement.
Literal statement.
Yes there are exceptions, like always. I simply do not like newer games, for numerous reasons. They may not all make sense to some, but isn't that the funny thing about opinions? Everyone is entitled to them.
Put it to you this way, take the 3DS. The original model, not any of the numerous revisions. The 3DS system menu has load times. Everything in the system menu has to have music and sound effects. Everything has to animate. This is all annoying and eats up my free time to play games.
When you play a 3DS game, the large majority are really just home console games, with all the same "modern innovations" like load times, cutscenes, audible speech, high contrast graphics and sometimes you only get checkpoint saving.
That's when I stepped back and realized the original DS and GBA were a lot better in this regard. They were visually pretty but not obnoxious. After I got a Game Boy (DMG) flash cart though, I find myself playing that the most. The games truly were meant for portable play. Simple, straight forward, no load times, easy on the eyes and ears, just great.
What you and everyone else isn't understanding is you yourselves have changed. Newer games haven't made older games worse. It is your personal judgement and perception that does that. Not all of us like newer games.
That's not true at all, this is exactly something we understand and from where we tried to explain the signification of the idiom. One of the reason why Brock 1 loved playing Goldeneye then, and that the game has less appeal to Brock 2 today is because the game is what it is in both cases. Brock 1 changed to Brock 2 because the world around changed too. The idiom figuratively propose that the game has 'aged', but only to convey a larger meaning through a linguistic shortcut. It is an oxymoron and a metonimy.
Clue us into whether this is hyperbole or if you genuinely believe this as a literal statement.
Literal statement.
Yes there are exceptions, like always. I simply do not like newer games, for numerous reasons. They may not all make sense to some, but isn't that the funny thing about opinions? Everyone is entitled to them.
Put it to you this way, take the 3DS. The original model, not any of the numerous revisions. The 3DS system menu has load times. Everything in the system menu has to have music and sound effects. Everything has to animate. This is all annoying and eats up my free time to play games.
When you play a 3DS game, the large majority are really just home console games, with all the same "modern innovations" like load times, cutscenes, audible speech, high contrast graphics and sometimes you only get checkpoint saving.
That's when I stepped back and realized the original DS and GBA were a lot better in this regard. They were visually pretty but not obnoxious. After I got a Game Boy (DMG) flash cart though, I find myself playing that the most. The games truly were meant for portable play. Simple, straight forward, no load times, easy on the eyes and ears, just great.
Part of why I was ragging you about the literal statement is that, in all caps, you said "ANY platform"...
Do you really think that new NES, SNES, Genesis, etc games are visually or audibly noisier than vintage games of the era of the systems in question?
For that matter, do you think games like FTL, Shovel Knight, Cave Story, Axiom Verge, VVVVV, or any number of other new games (in the last decade) that have graphics more akin to an older era are visually noisy?
Since you mention RE4, specifically, did you actually find that game to be visually noisier than the original RE or RE2 on the PS1?
Or for something less gritty (since " grit" can be off putting for some) did you actually find the Mario Galaxy games to be more visually noisy than Mario 64 or Sunshine? Or did you find Super Paper Mario to be noisier than Paper Mario (64)?
Hell, what about A Boy and His Blob? That is an exercise in pleasing visual and audio design
If so, I seriously question your perception of "noise".
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
Insulting someone indirectly isn't helping your argument at all.
you programmed your own god damn super mario world game
We know your not stupid. That is why i said cmon man we know you are smarter than this.
I repeated a saying. We know your not dumb. Thats why you not getting anything 99 percent of us are saying is baffling.
Just because you personally dont like newer updates of n64 games, which isnt the norm. Imo Mario Kart 64 tracks are hella bland and nothing interesting about them in comparison to awesome mario kart 8 tracks. The control and handle of mario kart 8 is the sole reason that mario kart 64 hasnt aged well. So much smoother with skids and great cool track design such as the excitebike track and the fzero tracks. We know mario kart 64 is the same game. But, double dash and mario kart 8 didnt exist and we had no idea what better control and track design looked like.
If you understand my saying, we arent talking about literally aging. We are talking about holding up to todays games and still be just as enjoyable as we used to find them. We arent literally talking about the game changing. Its perspective. If you could just understand that, and realize you are the minority slim opinion here, then we can just drop it.
That's not true at all, this is exactly something we understand and from where we tried to explain the signification of the idiom. One of the reason why Brock 1 loved playing Goldeneye then, and that the game has less appeal to Brock 2 today is because the game is what it is in both cases. Brock 1 changed to Brock 2 because the world around changed too. The idiom figuratively propose that the game has 'aged', but only to convey a larger meaning through a linguistic shortcut. It is an oxymoron and a metonimy.
Fine, you win, enough.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Part of why I was ragging you about the literal statement is that, in all caps, you said "ANY platform"...
Do you really think that new NES, SNES, Genesis, etc games are visually or audibly noisier than vintage games of the era of the systems in question?
For that matter, do you think games like FTL, Shovel Knight, Cave Story, Axiom Verge, VVVVV, or any number of other new games (in the last decade) that have graphics more akin to an older era are visually noisy?
Since you mention RE4, specifically, did you actually find that game to be visually noisier than the original RE or RE2 on the PS1?
Or for something less gritty (since " grit" can be off putting for some) did you actually find the Mario Galaxy games to be more visually noisy than Mario 64 or Sunshine? Or did you find Super Paper Mario to be noisier than Paper Mario (64)?
Hell, what about A Boy and His Blob? That is an exercise in pleasing visual and audio design
If so, I seriously question the validity of your perception of "noise"...
What was that about taking things too literally?
I meant NEW platforms too! Are NES, SNES and Genesis NEW platforms? No. Stop playing dumb to make me look like an idiot.
When I mean newer games, I mean PS4/Xbone/Steam/VIta/3DS. SMH
I played Pier Solar on Genesis and it was visually/audibly fine. I haven't played stuff like Shovel Knight or Cave Story.
Typically you bring up RE4 out of context. RE4 was a PS2/GC game. Don't you think it's too old to be included in my "newer" games definition?
I haven't played A Boy and his Blob.
My perception of noise is excessive visual and audible effects, also things like Bloom lighting and super high contrast graphics, common to most HD games these days.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
Insulting someone indirectly isn't helping your argument at all.
you programmed your own god damn super mario world game
We know your not stupid. That is why i said cmon man we know you are smarter than this.
I repeated a saying. We know your not dumb. Thats why you not getting anything 99 percent of us are saying is baffling.
Just because you personally dont like newer updates of n64 games, which isnt the norm. Imo Mario Kart 64 tracks are hella bland and nothing interesting about them in comparison to awesome mario kart 8 tracks. The control and handle of mario kart 8 is the sole reason that mario kart 64 hasnt aged well. So much smoother with skids and great cool track design such as the excitebike track and the fzero tracks. We know mario kart 64 is the same game. But, double dash and mario kart 8 didnt exist and we had no idea what better control and track design looked like.
If you understand my saying, we arent talking about literally aging. We are talking about holding up to todays games and still be just as enjoyable as we used to find them. We arent literally talking about the game changing. Its perspective. If you could just understand that, and realize you are the minority slim opinion here, then we can just drop it.
* you're x 2
go the fuck away. no one cares.
Your lack of grasp of the English language calls into question the validity of any argument you make. And let's be honest, you love to speak as if your word is law
Your lack of grasp of the English language calls into question the validity of any argument you make. And let's be honest, you love to speak as if your word is law
Straw man bullshit. You apparently missed the entire point as I was saying he wasnt dumb and he should know better. It was a saying. I wasnt making an argument that he was dumb. It was the opposite. Read bro.
If all you are going to do is pull this straw man distraction off topic bs, then please go away. If you wish to continue to be a dick feel free to just pm me. Im done talking to you in this thread. You are contributing zero now to this thread.
Comments
To judge an old school game you need to judge it almost in isolation. A game either was or it wasn't good.
Unless it was one of the first of its kind to come out, or was otherwise seen as innovative at the time, and its approach was all we really knew (depending on its context.) We may not have seen the limitations it had because it was so novel, but improvements later highlighted shortcomings we either were willing to overlook or just didn't recognize. Kind of one of those "what is seen can't be unseen" type of deals.
Then it becomes a matter of whether the game has something else going for it. Some games do, some games don't.
According To guntz, we are all just too stupid to know what games we liked as kids and what games we still enjoy now. We just tricked ourselves as children. Those 100s of hours on the n64 clearing all cups, collecting every item on fetch quest 64 playformers, beating all the coin challenges and whizz pig on diddy kong racing. Yeah we just thought we liked those games.
Just smh
There is only one constant here, YOU changed, not the games you used to play. That's all I'm trying to say.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
According To guntz, we are all just too stupid to know what games we liked as kids and what games we still enjoy now. We just tricked ourselves as children. Those 100s of hours on the n64 clearing all cups, collecting every item on fetch quest 64 playformers, beating all the coin challenges and whizz pig on diddy kong racing. Yeah we just thought we liked those games.
Just smh
There is only one constant here, YOU changed, not the games you used to play. That's all I'm trying to say.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
And it's not shitting on a game to call it "dated" "hasn't aged well" or "it's a product of its time." We're recognizing the changes that have come since.
The Ford Model T got America motoring and introduced innovations in mass production. It's in museums and car shows. But no one wants one as a daily driver anymore. A Model T is too limited today. We've improved the car. We can still appreciate what it did.
In arts and literature, though, it is a criticism to say something is "dated" or "hasn't aged well". It means that it's so mired in the materials of its age, or in assumptions typical of the time, that it can't speak to any audience other than the one for which it was originally intended. It's full of the period's equivalent of fan-service and Family Guy cutaways.
When we deem certain things "timeless" or "universal", we often mean that they flatter us (don't make us feel stupid or alienated), fit nicely into our lifestyle, or have become socially accepted symbols whose popularity makes up most of their substance. Mozart or mid-period Miles Davis go nicely with our dinner party, and we feel like we understand them, so they're timeless.
Yet the alleged "timelessness" often has nothing to do with the actual material of the artwork: Greek statues were garishly painted, the Mona Lisa looks nothing like the original probably did, and Gregorian chants are religious invocations with a specific meaning, not lifestyle accompaniments for people when they want to feel "spiritual". People thought all kinds of stuff was timeless 50-70 years ago, and much of that has been completely forgotten.
I still don't like analogizing games to tools, because they're fundamentally different. But the Model T is an interesting example because it's both a tool and, for people who love vintage cars, a work of art (or at least craft) that's meant to be enjoyed.
As a tool, has a Model T been superseded? Sure, there are many faster and safer ways to get from Point A to Point B. As an aesthetic experience, though? Not at all: it's not like driving a Corvette or a Prius will make you say "Whoa, this is just like driving a Model T, but better in every way". So it'd be silly to say a Model T has "aged badly", because it's using the wrong metric: you're measuring something irrelevant.
I think my biggest problem with saying that things have "aged badly/well" is that it's often a subjective claim masquerading as an objective statement, and that it reminds me too much of teenagers trying to show that they're "above" something uncool. I still would rather see us use a phrase that puts the burden on ourselves and our changing needs, and views the past with a bit more sympathy.
And the subtext really does often seem to be "Haw haw, my past self was so stupid, progress is so great!", which is something I can't get on board with because it doesn't match my experience of the world: a lot of the time, "progress" is more double-edged than people realize, and what appears to be an Objective Improvement now -- a refutation of what came before, rendering the past unnecessary -- doesn't look so smart ten years later.
To me, a phrase like that reflects the wrong way of looking at things. It's got too much of the consumer about it -- pronouncing judgment, as though life is a buyer's guide and it's time to get new stuff -- and not enough of the sympathetic observer. And it's not as if the world needs more opinions right now.
According To guntz, we are all just too stupid to know what games we liked as kids and what games we still enjoy now. We just tricked ourselves as children. Those 100s of hours on the n64 clearing all cups, collecting every item on fetch quest 64 playformers, beating all the coin challenges and whizz pig on diddy kong racing. Yeah we just thought we liked those games.
Just smh
There is only one constant here, YOU changed, not the games you used to play. That's all I'm trying to say.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
typing quickly. I know the difference. dick
Most people actually know the difference. You're is harder to type than your and just like texting gets typed quickly incorrectly often. A typo is a typo.
According To guntz, we are all just too stupid to know what games we liked as kids and what games we still enjoy now. We just tricked ourselves as children. Those 100s of hours on the n64 clearing all cups, collecting every item on fetch quest 64 playformers, beating all the coin challenges and whizz pig on diddy kong racing. Yeah we just thought we liked those games.
Just smh
There is only one constant here, YOU changed, not the games you used to play. That's all I'm trying to say.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
typing quickly. I know the difference. dick
Yeah I am be careful in a post criticizing someone of low iq. You don't get the benefit of the doubt there
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
typing quickly. I know the difference. dick
Yeah I am be careful in a post criticizing someone of low iq. You don't get the benefit of the doubt there
It was just a saying that related to the discussion. Grammar nazi's are fucking annoying ass people. When reading a forum Im not looking for mistypes of your you're their there they're. It all reads the same when reading and typing quickly. People know what you mean.
My mom is a high school and university english teacher. Im well aware of it all. Probably alot more than a majority of you.
This little distraction you caused takes away from the point entirely. No one cares about a you're typo.
When typing on here, I am not trying to write a research paper or a published article.
A typo has nothing to do with IQ.
Originally posted by: quest4nes
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
Insulting someone indirectly isn't helping your argument at all.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
*you're
typing quickly. I know the difference. dick
Yeah I am be careful in a post criticizing someone of low iq. You don't get the benefit of the doubt there
It was just a saying that related to the discussion. Grammar nazi's are fucking annoying ass people. When reading a forum Im not looking for mistypes of your you're their there they're. It all reads the same when reading and typing quickly. People know what you mean.
My mom is a high school and university english teacher. Im well aware of it all. Probably alot more than a majority of you.
This little distraction you caused takes away from the point entirely. No one cares about a you're typo.
When typing on here, I am not trying to write a research paper or a published article.
A typo has nothing to do with IQ.
That's a very nice way of rationalizing and normalizing YOUR mistake. Always so defensive you are.
also the cowboys can suck my ....
As a tool, has a Model T been superseded? Sure, there are many faster and safer ways to get from Point A to Point B. As an aesthetic experience, though? Not at all: it's not like driving a Corvette or a Prius will make you say "Whoa, this is just like driving a Model T, but better in every way". So it'd be silly to say a Model T has "aged badly", because it's using the wrong metric: you're measuring something irrelevant.
Have you ever actually driven a genuine Model T? I have, as my dad owned one briefly (he restored cars as a hobby.) They're a pain in the ass. Their gear/clutch setup is non-intuitive, and their crank start is an exercise in frustration. You get over the thrill pretty quick (and if you wanted to experience open top rattle traps, there are any number of kit cars that'll do that for you.) Even a lowly Prius is "better in every way" in terms of driving. So in that respect, the experience, it has "aged badly." You can set a Model T aside as a work of art, and they're kind of cool to say you've driven one, but if we're talking the actual experience, then yes, they've been superseded.
So much like games, which can be appreciated in their historical context but sadly must be compared to modern games to get the whole picture, the experience back then can be superseded by more advanced (cars, video games, whatever) in that sense.
Anyone can fire up GoldenEye and play it. It still plays now as it did in the late 90s, and some may even get enjoyment out of it. But if we're talking about the most advanced FPS experience, it was left behind years ago.
To judge an old school game you need to judge it almost in isolation. A game either was or it wasn't good.
Unless it was one of the first of its kind to come out, or was otherwise seen as innovative at the time, and its approach was all we really knew (depending on its context.) We may not have seen the limitations it had because it was so novel, but improvements later highlighted shortcomings we either were willing to overlook or just didn't recognize. Kind of one of those "what is seen can't be unseen" type of deals.
Then it becomes a matter of whether the game has something else going for it. Some games do, some games don't.
I think maybe another way to sum up the concept is that none of us (well, very few of us) are discussing truly objective "good" / "bad" as a binary rating.
Rather, it is a case of a spectrum, where many games, in their own time were "good ENOUGH", when there were limited options and fewer points of comparison.
It isn't that the game was " always bad". It is that its deficiencies, that at one time were tolerable or ignorable (for whatever reason) have ceased to be so (for any number of reasons).
I am sure that you only need to dig through a back issue of PC Gamer to see some games rated highly (at the time) that in retrospect are not worthy of their rating. (Same concept holds true for games on any system)
I think the defensiveness about this topic borders between amusing and flat out bizarre.
Someone here said Mario Kart 64 as aged poorly, because they like newer Mario Karts better. I disagree, I think Mario Kart 64 is still an excellent installment in the series. I would rather play it over Mario Kart Wii or 7 any day. It's got a smoother challenge curve, its rubber-band effect is nowhere near as bad as it is in MKWii and the graphics/sound are far less intrusive and noisy. If Mario Kart 8 is anything like Wii and 7, I'll pass.
One of the things I dislike about nearly every modern game is they pollute your eyes and ears with excess. You ever play Pokemon Shuffle on 3DS? For a portable game, it sure loves explosive visuals and obnoxious sound effects. That's what's so nice about older games, especially the portable kind. You don't have to wait for stuff to load, or have to watch endless cutscenes or put up with noise pollution.
I think maybe another way to sum up the concept is that none of us (well, very few of us) are discussing truly objective "good" / "bad" as a binary rating.
Rather, it is a case of a spectrum, where many games, in their own time were "good ENOUGH", when there were limited options and fewer points of comparison.
It isn't that the game was " always bad". It is that its deficiencies, that at one time were tolerable or ignorable (for whatever reason) have ceased to be so (for any number of reasons).
I am sure that you only need to dig through a back issue of PC Gamer to see some games rated highly (at the time) that in retrospect are not worthy of their rating. (Same concept holds true for games on any system)
I totally agree. In some cases, it's not that the game was created with a deliberate flaw, it's that the "flaw" wasn't recognized as such until someone improved something and we went "Oh, that's a heck of a lot better." Or the flaw was noticed but we put up with it until someone came out of nowhere with something better.
Wrist-breaking Atari 2600 joysticks were considered the norm until Nintendo showed us the D-pad.
One of the things I dislike about nearly every modern game is they pollute your eyes and ears with excess. You ever play Pokemon Shuffle on 3DS? For a portable game, it sure loves explosive visuals and obnoxious sound effects.
That's by design. It's Nintendo's clever way of simulating a gambling environment, such as a casino. A lot of the newer slot machines have very similar effects, noises, and game mechanics. That, on top of the wait times and how time consuming it is to actually get coins without paying for them makes it a very devious freemium game.
Regardless, I see both arguments here. My two cents are that the games haven't changed, but expectations about how games should play, which are gained either by playing new games or growing older and wiser, have. I support this by pointing out that some genres of games have "aged well" because the expectations and measures of a "good" game in the genre was mostly the same as it is now: SHMUPS, 2D platformers, 2D fighters, RPGs, puzzle games, and so on. Similarly, genres in which games have "aged poorly" have typically seen a lot of new developments and changes: racing games, 3D action games, 3D fighters, realistic sports games, and so on.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
Insulting someone indirectly isn't helping your argument at all.
you programmed your own god damn super mario world game
We know your not stupid. That is why i said cmon man we know you are smarter than this.
I repeated a saying. We know your not dumb. Thats why you not getting anything 99 percent of us are saying is baffling.
Just because you personally dont like newer updates of n64 games, which isnt the norm. Imo Mario Kart 64 tracks are hella bland and nothing interesting about them in comparison to awesome mario kart 8 tracks. The control and handle of mario kart 8 is the sole reason that mario kart 64 hasnt aged well. So much smoother with skids and great cool track design such as the excitebike track and the fzero tracks. We know mario kart 64 is the same game. But, double dash and mario kart 8 didnt exist and we had no idea what better control and track design looked like.
If you understand my saying, we arent talking about literally aging. We are talking about holding up to todays games and still be just as enjoyable as we used to find them. We arent literally talking about the game changing. Its perspective. If you could just understand that, and realize you are the minority slim opinion here, then we can just drop it.
Originally posted by: Philosoraptor
That's by design. It's Nintendo's clever way of simulating a gambling environment, such as a casino. A lot of the newer slot machines have very similar effects, noises, and game mechanics. That, on top of the wait times and how time consuming it is to actually get coins without paying for them makes it a very devious freemium game.
Yeah, I know it's a freemium game, that's not what I meant. Literally, pick ANY game made this decade. ANY platform. They ALL have visual and audible noise pollution. It's one of many reasons I'd rather play old games instead of newer ones.
Random example:
http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/partyhard/partyhard.htm
That game's lighting is really hard on the eyes. In-game, the resolution makes everything too small and therefore also hard on the eyes.
Pick any PS4/Xbone game and it will most likely have way too much bloom lighting, ugh...
What games are truly best will always be something debatable, and anyone personal preferences are justifiable in the end. It doesn't change the fact that 'aging poorly' has a meaning, it is not just a BS concept.
That's by design. It's Nintendo's clever way of simulating a gambling environment, such as a casino. A lot of the newer slot machines have very similar effects, noises, and game mechanics. That, on top of the wait times and how time consuming it is to actually get coins without paying for them makes it a very devious freemium game.
Yeah, I know it's a freemium game, that's not what I meant. Literally, pick ANY game made this decade. ANY platform. They ALL have visual and audible noise pollution. It's one of many reasons I'd rather play old games instead of newer ones.
Random example:
Clue us into whether this is hyperbole or if you genuinely believe this as a literal statement.
Originally posted by: quest4nes
Just because you personally dont like newer updates of n64 games, which isnt the norm. Imo Mario Kart 64 tracks are hella bland and nothing interesting about them in comparison to awesome mario kart 8 tracks. The control and handle of mario kart 8 is the sole reason that mario kart 64 hasnt aged well. So much smoother with skids and great cool track design such as the excitebike track and the fzero tracks. We know mario kart 64 is the same game. But, double dash and mario kart 8 didnt exist and we had no idea what better control and track design looked like.
It's still little more than an opinion. It's not a fact that MK8 is better, it's just newer. I like MK64 more than most of its sequels (for the record, I also like Double Dash and DS). If you prefer newer over old, that's fine. I just think you guys aren't giving older games enough credit here.
Originally posted by: quest4nes
If you understand my saying, we arent talking about literally aging. We are talking about holding up to todays games and still be just as enjoyable as we used to find them. We arent literally talking about the game changing. Its perspective. If you could just understand that, and realize you are the minority slim opinion here, then we can just drop it.
Yes, I do understand the idiom. The games aren't literally aging.
What you and everyone else isn't understanding is you yourselves have changed. Newer games haven't made older games worse. It is your personal judgement and perception that does that. Not all of us like newer games.
Look at it this way, just because there's Resident Evil 4 with its fancy new controls, doesn't mean suddenly RE1 isn't playable. To your tastes, you would rather play RE4. To some of us, RE1 is still playable to this day regardless of its sequels.
The exact same thing can be said of good old Super Mario Bros. 1, to some it is VERY primtiive and can't possibly stand against its sequels. Yet so many here think otherwise. Isn't that proof that whether a game is made obsolete is really just a matter of perspective?
That's by design. It's Nintendo's clever way of simulating a gambling environment, such as a casino. A lot of the newer slot machines have very similar effects, noises, and game mechanics. That, on top of the wait times and how time consuming it is to actually get coins without paying for them makes it a very devious freemium game.
Yeah, I know it's a freemium game, that's not what I meant. Literally, pick ANY game made this decade. ANY platform. They ALL have visual and audible noise pollution. It's one of many reasons I'd rather play old games instead of newer ones.
Random example:
http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/...
That game's lighting is really hard on the eyes. In-game, the resolution makes everything too small and therefore also hard on the eyes.
Pick any PS4/Xbone game and it will most likely have way too much bloom lighting, ugh...
Well, but a casino is basically the definition of noise pollution, so games trying to emulate that environment will be that way, too.
Funny that you mention bloom lighting, because when I think of that and other games that hurt my eyes after a while due to brightness, I think of newer Zelda games, especially Wind Waker, and games that are cel shaded or shaded to resemble an anime, like One Piece games. Still play 'em though.
I can't speak to what games are hard on someone else's eyes, but what's always bothered mine are games that I have to really focus on the screen while playing for one reason or another. Typically, it's because they're too dark, like Tom Clancy games, or small and blurry, like most of Nintendo's earlier handheld games on the GB and GBC. To this day, I have to play them on either the Retron 5 or the GBA player because the screens Nintendo put in the GB and GBC hurt my eyes, even when I was little.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Clue us into whether this is hyperbole or if you genuinely believe this as a literal statement.
Literal statement.
Yes there are exceptions, like always. I simply do not like newer games, for numerous reasons. They may not all make sense to some, but isn't that the funny thing about opinions? Everyone is entitled to them.
Put it to you this way, take the 3DS. The original model, not any of the numerous revisions. The 3DS system menu has load times. Everything in the system menu has to have music and sound effects. Everything has to animate. This is all annoying and eats up my free time to play games.
When you play a 3DS game, the large majority are really just home console games, with all the same "modern innovations" like load times, cutscenes, audible speech, high contrast graphics and sometimes you only get checkpoint saving.
That's when I stepped back and realized the original DS and GBA were a lot better in this regard. They were visually pretty but not obnoxious. After I got a Game Boy (DMG) flash cart though, I find myself playing that the most. The games truly were meant for portable play. Simple, straight forward, no load times, easy on the eyes and ears, just great.
Originally posted by: Guntz
What you and everyone else isn't understanding is you yourselves have changed. Newer games haven't made older games worse. It is your personal judgement and perception that does that. Not all of us like newer games.
That's not true at all, this is exactly something we understand and from where we tried to explain the signification of the idiom. One of the reason why Brock 1 loved playing Goldeneye then, and that the game has less appeal to Brock 2 today is because the game is what it is in both cases. Brock 1 changed to Brock 2 because the world around changed too. The idiom figuratively propose that the game has 'aged', but only to convey a larger meaning through a linguistic shortcut. It is an oxymoron and a metonimy.
Clue us into whether this is hyperbole or if you genuinely believe this as a literal statement.
Literal statement.
Yes there are exceptions, like always. I simply do not like newer games, for numerous reasons. They may not all make sense to some, but isn't that the funny thing about opinions? Everyone is entitled to them.
Put it to you this way, take the 3DS. The original model, not any of the numerous revisions. The 3DS system menu has load times. Everything in the system menu has to have music and sound effects. Everything has to animate. This is all annoying and eats up my free time to play games.
When you play a 3DS game, the large majority are really just home console games, with all the same "modern innovations" like load times, cutscenes, audible speech, high contrast graphics and sometimes you only get checkpoint saving.
That's when I stepped back and realized the original DS and GBA were a lot better in this regard. They were visually pretty but not obnoxious. After I got a Game Boy (DMG) flash cart though, I find myself playing that the most. The games truly were meant for portable play. Simple, straight forward, no load times, easy on the eyes and ears, just great.
Part of why I was ragging you about the literal statement is that, in all caps, you said "ANY platform"...
Do you really think that new NES, SNES, Genesis, etc games are visually or audibly noisier than vintage games of the era of the systems in question?
For that matter, do you think games like FTL, Shovel Knight, Cave Story, Axiom Verge, VVVVV, or any number of other new games (in the last decade) that have graphics more akin to an older era are visually noisy?
Since you mention RE4, specifically, did you actually find that game to be visually noisier than the original RE or RE2 on the PS1?
Or for something less gritty (since " grit" can be off putting for some) did you actually find the Mario Galaxy games to be more visually noisy than Mario 64 or Sunshine? Or did you find Super Paper Mario to be noisier than Paper Mario (64)?
Hell, what about A Boy and His Blob? That is an exercise in pleasing visual and audio design
If so, I seriously question your perception of "noise".
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
Insulting someone indirectly isn't helping your argument at all.
you programmed your own god damn super mario world game
We know your not stupid. That is why i said cmon man we know you are smarter than this.
I repeated a saying. We know your not dumb. Thats why you not getting anything 99 percent of us are saying is baffling.
Just because you personally dont like newer updates of n64 games, which isnt the norm. Imo Mario Kart 64 tracks are hella bland and nothing interesting about them in comparison to awesome mario kart 8 tracks. The control and handle of mario kart 8 is the sole reason that mario kart 64 hasnt aged well. So much smoother with skids and great cool track design such as the excitebike track and the fzero tracks. We know mario kart 64 is the same game. But, double dash and mario kart 8 didnt exist and we had no idea what better control and track design looked like.
If you understand my saying, we arent talking about literally aging. We are talking about holding up to todays games and still be just as enjoyable as we used to find them. We arent literally talking about the game changing. Its perspective. If you could just understand that, and realize you are the minority slim opinion here, then we can just drop it.
* you're x 2
Originally posted by: guillavoie
That's not true at all, this is exactly something we understand and from where we tried to explain the signification of the idiom. One of the reason why Brock 1 loved playing Goldeneye then, and that the game has less appeal to Brock 2 today is because the game is what it is in both cases. Brock 1 changed to Brock 2 because the world around changed too. The idiom figuratively propose that the game has 'aged', but only to convey a larger meaning through a linguistic shortcut. It is an oxymoron and a metonimy.
Fine, you win, enough.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Part of why I was ragging you about the literal statement is that, in all caps, you said "ANY platform"...
Do you really think that new NES, SNES, Genesis, etc games are visually or audibly noisier than vintage games of the era of the systems in question?
For that matter, do you think games like FTL, Shovel Knight, Cave Story, Axiom Verge, VVVVV, or any number of other new games (in the last decade) that have graphics more akin to an older era are visually noisy?
Since you mention RE4, specifically, did you actually find that game to be visually noisier than the original RE or RE2 on the PS1?
Or for something less gritty (since " grit" can be off putting for some) did you actually find the Mario Galaxy games to be more visually noisy than Mario 64 or Sunshine? Or did you find Super Paper Mario to be noisier than Paper Mario (64)?
Hell, what about A Boy and His Blob? That is an exercise in pleasing visual and audio design
If so, I seriously question the validity of your perception of "noise"...
What was that about taking things too literally?
I meant NEW platforms too! Are NES, SNES and Genesis NEW platforms? No. Stop playing dumb to make me look like an idiot.
When I mean newer games, I mean PS4/Xbone/Steam/VIta/3DS. SMH
I played Pier Solar on Genesis and it was visually/audibly fine. I haven't played stuff like Shovel Knight or Cave Story.
Typically you bring up RE4 out of context. RE4 was a PS2/GC game. Don't you think it's too old to be included in my "newer" games definition?
I haven't played A Boy and his Blob.
My perception of noise is excessive visual and audible effects, also things like Bloom lighting and super high contrast graphics, common to most HD games these days.
* you're x 2
go the fuck away. no one cares. You apparently are only interested in straw man shit.
You better not ever fuck up typing. Being an ass will come back to bite you.
Interpreting things only in the literal is a sign of a low IQ.
We all know your smarter than this guntz. cmon man.
Insulting someone indirectly isn't helping your argument at all.
you programmed your own god damn super mario world game
We know your not stupid. That is why i said cmon man we know you are smarter than this.
I repeated a saying. We know your not dumb. Thats why you not getting anything 99 percent of us are saying is baffling.
Just because you personally dont like newer updates of n64 games, which isnt the norm. Imo Mario Kart 64 tracks are hella bland and nothing interesting about them in comparison to awesome mario kart 8 tracks. The control and handle of mario kart 8 is the sole reason that mario kart 64 hasnt aged well. So much smoother with skids and great cool track design such as the excitebike track and the fzero tracks. We know mario kart 64 is the same game. But, double dash and mario kart 8 didnt exist and we had no idea what better control and track design looked like.
If you understand my saying, we arent talking about literally aging. We are talking about holding up to todays games and still be just as enjoyable as we used to find them. We arent literally talking about the game changing. Its perspective. If you could just understand that, and realize you are the minority slim opinion here, then we can just drop it.
* you're x 2
go the fuck away. no one cares.
Your lack of grasp of the English language calls into question the validity of any argument you make. And let's be honest, you love to speak as if your word is law
Your lack of grasp of the English language calls into question the validity of any argument you make. And let's be honest, you love to speak as if your word is law
Straw man bullshit. You apparently missed the entire point as I was saying he wasnt dumb and he should know better. It was a saying. I wasnt making an argument that he was dumb. It was the opposite. Read bro.
If all you are going to do is pull this straw man distraction off topic bs, then please go away. If you wish to continue to be a dick feel free to just pm me. Im done talking to you in this thread. You are contributing zero now to this thread.