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.
Well... when I EXPLICITLY ask if you are being literal AND you reply "literal statement", with no qualifications... am I supposed to assume you are telling the truth, or being facetious?
When you are the guy that doesn't accept the commonly used idioms, it makes it hard to read whether you are being serious, or not, when you give a point-blank reply that then in this quoted post you completely unwind as a lie.
(both on the "any platform" and "any game" standpoint, when you readily admit you haven't even played the games I'm asking about)
If you don't want us to assume that you're speaking literally when you make these statements, then don't reply that YES you were making a literal statement... (you don't really get to flip this one around on me, when I took your seemingly clear response at face value )
I simply forgot that for a lot of people, newer includes all the 1% stuff like new cartridge releases and indie games. To me, when I think new games, I think 3D HD PS4/Xbone/Steam/Vita/3DS games, you know, new platforms with new games on them. Silly of me to think the majority rule applied here too.
Did I say "last 10 years"? Pretty sure I said this decade, which is now 6 years in. RE4 is way too old to be part of that definition.
I simply forgot that for a lot of people, newer includes all the 1% stuff like new cartridge releases and indie games. To me, when I think new games, I think 3D HD PS4/Xbone/Steam/Vita/3DS games, you know, new platforms with new games on them. Silly of me to think the majority rule applied here too.
Did I say "last 10 years"? Pretty sure I said this decade, which is now 6 years in. RE4 is way too old to be part of that definition.
OK, again, clarify... are you saying "1% stuff like new cartridg release" and "indie games" as separate statements, or does the "1% stuff" apply to both cart releases AND indie games, in your assessment?
Indie games are a huge industry, at least in terms of quantity of available releases. (not in dollars, necessarily, since they sell at a steep discount, in general, compared to larger releases)
In terms of the latter... I suppose that is a valid interpretation of what you said, though I suspect I am not alone in having read your statement as being about releases within the last decade (i.e. last 10 years), rather than within the 2010's, specifically. My bad, I guess, for misunderstanding your meaning. (still stands, though, that a huge, huge quantity of indie releases exist in the last 6 years that completely invalidate your otherwise absolute statement upthread)
If you wanted your point to be just about AAA titles, then you should have said as much instead of saying LITERALLY "ANY game, ANY system" and then clearly replying that you meant that literally
Not really. It's been a worthless discussion as nobody here has really learned anything.
I'm gonna put my argument in a nutshell one last time.
I'm trying to explain an abstract concept that it is solely on you to decide if a game is too old to be playable or not. Some of us like old games, this site is devoted to them. Not everyone thinks that way. The existence of newer games doesn't inherently change whether an older game is still enjoyable to some people.
I played Goldeneye until I beat every single level, and unlocked every single cheat. That may of taken me an entire year.
I played GTA III without any outside help and spent tens of hours trying to find every hidden package (I got to 97)
You couldn't pay me to do either of those things again. But I probably will go and unlock every medal on expert (again) in Star Fox 64 3D. In fact the idea of that excites me
Now, did I secretly hate Goldeneye and GTA III, making me some sort of masochist who was lying to myself about having all that fun. Or did those games just age worse than SF64?
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
...also I should point out I did go back and beat and unlock everything for Perfect Dark again recently... on 360. Probably because I could actually see what was going on and I had a controller and controller scheme that was worth a shit
Originally posted by: guillavoie
Something that is quite important too is that recognizing in a way or another that an aspect of a game 'aged poorly' doesn't mean you no longer like the game, and it doesn't make it automatically a bad game. You seem to be lumping things in one camp or the other (good games vs bad games), while it is not necessarily what's being talk about.
Since I ever said it in a thread somewhere, yes, I think some aspects of Goldeneye007 have 'aged poorly', and I'm not even an adept of the genre. Still, I personally love the game and still enjoy playing it very much. But, I'm not surprised by others reaction to the game, like Brock that played the shit out of the game, but that won't come back to it today.
I don't need to explain his opinion by saying he's shallow or that he tricked himself in loving the game in the past, I get exactly why he said what he said.
Originally posted by: quest4nes
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.
No one disputes that. When it's not only me who had a change in perception but, instead, people in general collectively shifted their perceptions, then we have a phrase for describing that. You're too hung up on it being meaningless for one person and one particular game title when it's always been about generally shared perceptions. You're arguing against people who never said what you thought they said.
OK, again, clarify... are you saying "1% stuff like new cartridg release" and "indie games" as separate statements, or does the "1% stuff" apply to both cart releases AND indie games, in your assessment?
Indie games are a huge industry, at least in terms of quantity of available releases. (not in dollars, necessarily, since they sell at a steep discount, in general, compared to larger releases)
In terms of the latter... I suppose that is a valid interpretation of what you said, though I suspect I am not alone in having read your statement as being about releases within the last decade (i.e. last 10 years), rather than within the 2010's, specifically. My bad, I guess, for misunderstanding your meaning. (still stands, though, that a huge, huge quantity of indie releases exist in the last 6 years that completely invalidate your otherwise absolute statement upthread)
If you wanted your point to be just about AAA titles, then you should have said as much instead of saying LITERALLY "ANY game, ANY system" and then clearly replying that you meant that literally
Yes I meant AAA releases. I used to like them 10 - 15 years ago, not anymore.
I can't stand any Mario Kart after Double Dash and still play the the N64 and SNES games regularly. I own them all and always give them a shot, but to me there is just nothing like Mario Kart 64 Battle Mode and the music in the original Super Mario Kart. It's very weird to me to see it used as an example of a game that aged poorly.
Similarly, I was already a PC FPS player (still am) so Goldeneye 007 was already very crude to me at launch but I still play it somewhat frequently and enjoy it to this day. I can see why people would say that it aged poorly, but the game itself is just a fun for me. Back then they were proud to show off NPCs with randomized faces and other NPCs with different/reconizable faces, so they stuck them in the intro even with horribly low texture detail and polygon counts. It looks bad enough that no one would have wasted programming effort to do that these days even if they were programming on an older platform like that. It was wasting resources to show how UNconvincing their character models were. No one is impressed even considering the console and what had been done at the time, so it "aged poorly."
Remember, it didn't take much to impress back then. Some basketball game on N64 was the first to have uniquely recognizable players based on the real player faces, but that is simply not impressive enough to matter now even in context when looking at the limitations of the platform.
OK, again, clarify... are you saying "1% stuff like new cartridg release" and "indie games" as separate statements, or does the "1% stuff" apply to both cart releases AND indie games, in your assessment?
Indie games are a huge industry, at least in terms of quantity of available releases. (not in dollars, necessarily, since they sell at a steep discount, in general, compared to larger releases)
In terms of the latter... I suppose that is a valid interpretation of what you said, though I suspect I am not alone in having read your statement as being about releases within the last decade (i.e. last 10 years), rather than within the 2010's, specifically. My bad, I guess, for misunderstanding your meaning. (still stands, though, that a huge, huge quantity of indie releases exist in the last 6 years that completely invalidate your otherwise absolute statement upthread)
If you wanted your point to be just about AAA titles, then you should have said as much instead of saying LITERALLY "ANY game, ANY system" and then clearly replying that you meant that literally
Yes I meant AAA releases. I used to like them 10 - 15 years ago, not anymore.
It sounds more like you meant to say "current mainstream" to me.
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.
That's not really cool, but okay, I'll just step aside from this discussion.
I can't stand any Mario Kart after Double Dash and still play the the N64 and SNES games regularly. I own them all and always give them a shot, but to me there is just nothing like Mario Kart 64 Battle Mode and the music in the original Super Mario Kart. It's very weird to me to see it used as an example of a game that aged poorly.
Similarly, I was already a PC FPS player (still am) so Goldeneye 007 was already very crude to me at launch but I still play it somewhat frequently and enjoy it to this day. I can see why people would say that it aged poorly, but the game itself is just a fun for me. Back then they were proud to show off NPCs with randomized faces and other NPCs with different/reconizable faces, so they stuck them in the intro even with horribly low texture detail and polygon counts. It looks bad enough that no one would have wasted programming effort to do that these days even if they were programming on an older platform like that. It was wasting resources to show how UNconvincing their character models were. No one is impressed even considering the console and what had been done at the time, so it "aged poorly."
Remember, it didn't take much to impress back then. Some basketball game on N64 was the first to have uniquely recognizable players based on the real player faces, but that is simply not impressive enough to matter now even in context when looking at the limitations of the platform.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
Again, that's your opinion, not a fact. Technically speaking, yeah sure, MK8 is graphically and technically more advanced than MK64. Is it better? That's a subjective opinion. If you ask me, I think MK64 looks better because it has a more reserved art style and it doesn't assault your eyes with too much stuff on screen.
Also again, there are PLENTY of people who say the exact same negative things about Super Mario Kart. Heck, I think we've had discussions about it here.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
Again, that's your opinion, not a fact. Technically speaking, yeah sure, MK8 is graphically and technically more advanced than MK64. Is it better? That's a subjective opinion. If you ask me, I think MK64 looks better because it has a more reserved art style and it doesn't assault your eyes with too much stuff on screen.
Also again, there are PLENTY of people who say the exact same negative things about Super Mario Kart. Heck, I think we've had discussions about it here.
mario kart 64 looks better than mario kart 8? hahahahahahaha. Thats a new one.
Yes it is my opinion. Along with the opinion of mostly everyone, that mario kart 8 controls and looks better than mario kart 64.
When people talking about games and aging well it is primarily focused early 3d polygon games. SNES and NES have a few games that look bad, but mostly the art style is different and looks good today still. Early polygon 3d animation does not. Thats not saying the game cant be fun still though. So no need to try and make that point.
How about lets just consider your opinion one of a kind and lets move on.
yet again games "aging" isnt literal. Its an expression to describe what we are trying to get through your skull.
What's sad is you're being narrow-minded too. SNES and NES games aren't universally recognized as looking good, just like not everyone thinks early 3D is ugly.
I can't stand any Mario Kart after Double Dash and still play the the N64 and SNES games regularly. I own them all and always give them a shot, but to me there is just nothing like Mario Kart 64 Battle Mode and the music in the original Super Mario Kart. It's very weird to me to see it used as an example of a game that aged poorly.
Similarly, I was already a PC FPS player (still am) so Goldeneye 007 was already very crude to me at launch but I still play it somewhat frequently and enjoy it to this day. I can see why people would say that it aged poorly, but the game itself is just a fun for me. Back then they were proud to show off NPCs with randomized faces and other NPCs with different/reconizable faces, so they stuck them in the intro even with horribly low texture detail and polygon counts. It looks bad enough that no one would have wasted programming effort to do that these days even if they were programming on an older platform like that. It was wasting resources to show how UNconvincing their character models were. No one is impressed even considering the console and what had been done at the time, so it "aged poorly."
Remember, it didn't take much to impress back then. Some basketball game on N64 was the first to have uniquely recognizable players based on the real player faces, but that is simply not impressive enough to matter now even in context when looking at the limitations of the platform.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
I guess I'm lucky that I've always had my twin brother and one of several friends who still love Mario Kart 64, so Block Fort Battle Mode gets a lot of play. Racing really only interests us in single player. We often have four willing players and one of us will sit out/spectate because it plays so much better in 3p.
My main issue with the newer games is paralysis of choice and over-balancing. Why do I want to spend forever deciding between every little combination of things for my kart only to have it not matter because being in the lead or being better than everyone else is automatically penalized? I don't want to try hundreds of combinations to find my "favorite." That's a chore to me and not how I want to have fun. It's my major turn-off to the newer games.
Hopefully we'll setup the Elgato with UltraHDMI and share a Mario Kart 64 match with you guys soon.
I can't stand any Mario Kart after Double Dash and still play the the N64 and SNES games regularly. I own them all and always give them a shot, but to me there is just nothing like Mario Kart 64 Battle Mode and the music in the original Super Mario Kart. It's very weird to me to see it used as an example of a game that aged poorly.
Similarly, I was already a PC FPS player (still am) so Goldeneye 007 was already very crude to me at launch but I still play it somewhat frequently and enjoy it to this day. I can see why people would say that it aged poorly, but the game itself is just a fun for me. Back then they were proud to show off NPCs with randomized faces and other NPCs with different/reconizable faces, so they stuck them in the intro even with horribly low texture detail and polygon counts. It looks bad enough that no one would have wasted programming effort to do that these days even if they were programming on an older platform like that. It was wasting resources to show how UNconvincing their character models were. No one is impressed even considering the console and what had been done at the time, so it "aged poorly."
Remember, it didn't take much to impress back then. Some basketball game on N64 was the first to have uniquely recognizable players based on the real player faces, but that is simply not impressive enough to matter now even in context when looking at the limitations of the platform.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
I guess I'm lucky that I've always had my twin brother and one of several friends who still love Mario Kart 64, so Block Fort Battle Mode gets a lot of play. Racing really only interests us in single player. We often have four willing players and one of us will sit out/spectate because it plays so much better in 3p.
My main issue with the newer games is paralysis of choice and over-balancing. Why do I want to spend forever deciding between every little combination of things for my kart only to have it not matter because being in the lead or being better than everyone else is automatically penalized? I don't want to try hundreds of combinations to find my "favorite." That's a chore to me and not how I want to have fun. It's my major turn-off to the newer games.
Hopefully we'll setup the Elgato with UltraHDMI and share a Mario Kart 64 match with you guys soon.
I dont like cart customization at all actually. Thats why I have my cart of choice and stick with it. They could do away with that aspect of it imo. I dont really consider that part of the experience of mario kart though.
I dont mind having the cart choices. Just dont like the aspect of wheels and gliders customization.
But if you play 8, just pick the mach 8 cart and go cyber slick tires and call it a day.
What's sad is you're being narrow-minded too. SNES and NES games aren't universally recognized as looking good, just like not everyone thinks early 3D is ugly.
early 3D is ugly. how is that even debatable?
oh yeah im speaking to the one person in the world(im sure theyll be someone else who will try and be the 2nd), that thinks visually mario kart 64 looks better than mario kart 8
I'm enjoying the thought of you eating those words when someone tells you NES/SNES games are ugly because they're not HD 3D games and laughs at your outdated opinion.
SNES and NES have a few games that look bad, but mostly the art style is different and looks good today still. Early polygon 3d animation does not.
I dunno, I think early 3D arcade games like I, Robot and Hard Drivin' still look great for what they are. They're not as realistic as modern graphics, but realism and technical quality aren't the same thing as aesthetic success. Updated graphics wouldn't "improve them" in any way.
The assumption being made over and over again is that better technical benchmarks = better graphics = more realism = better game. But I think a lot of Dreamcast/PS2/XBox-era games look really corny and overblown -- like listening to music with the bass and treble cranked all the way up -- and I find them unpleasant to look at even if they look more "realistic" and impressive at first glance vs. the previous generation.
Sometimes I honestly prefer the simpler polygonal graphics of early 3D, because the hardware limits led to results that I find more pleasant to experience for long periods of time. I don't want "realism" or high specs as an end in and of themselves, any more than I want to watch movies at 48 fps. They're a means to a potential end, and sometimes better specs seem to correlate with less satisfactory results, for a variety of reasons.
SNES and NES have a few games that look bad, but mostly the art style is different and looks good today still. Early polygon 3d animation does not.
I dunno, I think early 3D arcade games like I, Robot and Hard Drivin' still look great for what they are. They're not as realistic as modern graphics, but realism and technical quality aren't the same thing as aesthetic success. Updated graphics wouldn't "improve them" in any way.
The assumption being made over and over again is that better technical benchmarks = better graphics = more realism = better game. But I think a lot of Dreamcast/PS2/XBox-era games look really corny and overblown -- like listening to music with the bass and treble cranked all the way up -- and I find them unpleasant to look at even if they look more "realistic" and impressive at first glance vs. the previous generation.
Sometimes I honestly prefer the simpler polygonal graphics of early 3D, because the hardware limits led to results that I find more pleasant to experience for long periods of time. I don't want "realism" or high specs as an end in and of themselves, any more than I want to watch movies at 48 fps. They're a means to a potential end, and sometimes better specs seem to correlate with less satisfactory results, for a variety of reasons.
I highly respect your opinion bronze, and will refer you to my chart I posted up above. Would you say every game you've ever played would be represented by a straight line? Or would some/most/all of them be angled downwards? And if so, would the lines all be parallel to one another?
I totally agree that not everyone is going to be impacted by obsolete mechanics to the same degree. Most people would shake their head at the thought of having to do a stair command to move up Dragon Warrior floors, whileas some would find that very nostalgic, or have the patience of a god. But I think the latter are going to be definite exceptions to the rule...
On another note, I'm in the camp that thinks Mario Kart 64 is the best in the series (though I've really only put significant time in the DS one since), and that SMK was nearly unplayable in comparison (the irony being I'm the SNES guy, who also placed it in both of my contests). But, I played the 4 player mode earlier this year and none of us could tell where in the fuck we were going. That was a rude awakening to my nostalgia.
Either way, Mario Kart games age. Might depend on the title, and the person, but I guarantee that's a constant.
Kung Fu and Karateka. Both were best sellers in their time. Both were released on multiple platforms. Only one of them is still fun to play now. Was I subject to mass delusion while I enjoyed the other?
I highly respect your opinion bronze, and will refer you to my chart I posted up above. Would you say every game you've ever played would be represented by a straight line? Or would some/most/all of them be angled downwards? And if so, would the lines all be parallel to one another?
Thanks! It's an interesting question -- I'd say most of them are either a straight line, or collectively angled downwards in parallel, depending on whether life itself is simply less fun as we get older (what a pleasant thought!). There are a few games that have improved because I now understand how to play them; I can't think of any that have fallen off a cliff.
One thing that's changed as I've gotten older is that I care a lot less about whether a game is "good" or not, and am more interested in something like "Will playing this game be an effective and rewarding use of my time?" And part of that is because my main priority is beating games...
...actually, scratch that part about getting older -- I was the same way as a teenager, too! For me it's always mainly been about whether games were accessible to mastery (as I define it personally: I'm not using pegboy's ultra-high standards here). I want to beat games, to experience what they have to offer, and then move on.
The number of games I actually enjoy as an experience in and of themselves is rather small; I can't think of many games where I would want to hang out in their world for its own sake. Multiplayer gaming is less goal-oriented, but I also lived in a rural area as a kid and was mostly a solo gamer, so I don't have a lot of fond multiplayer memories to begin with -- most of those come from playing with my now-wife, honestly.
So I think good vs. bad is, in some ways, a point of indifference for me. I gravitate towards games that don't feel 100% mapped-out -- where I feel like I can discover something for myself -- and where I feel like my skill set is useful. So when it comes to 3D titles, early PS1 games like Kileak and Krazy Ivan are a good fit for me -- much more so than "better" games that arrived later and either make me motion-sick or just don't map well onto the way I play games.
BTW I take much the same attitude towards movies and music: I don't really care whether something is good or bad, as much as whether it's interesting (that's not really the right word, but it's close). One thing I am a raging purist about is tennis games, though...and I still hate black box Tennis just as much as I did when I was a kid.
Kung Fu and Karateka. Both were best sellers in their time. Both were released on multiple platforms. Only one of them is still fun to play now. Was I subject to mass delusion while I enjoyed the other?
Either that, or you sat there and played it and secretly seethed and hated the one you hate today. Because we all know kids love and hate the same things adults love and hate.
Originally posted by: bronzeshield depending on whether life itself is simply less fun as we get older (what a pleasant thought!).
Life is less fun when we get older?
Wait, as an adult, I don't have to ask my parents for NES games (or any games), I can have chocolate for breakfast, I can drive whereever I want, and can finally watch Skinemax without having it all scrambled.
Because we all know kids love and hate the same things adults love and hate.
I don't think anyone is claiming that, and I think you've got your straw man backwards (the adults should come first in the sentence).
Look, I can only say that this adult -- i.e. me -- has basically the same feelings now towards the media products he consumed as a kid. There's no way to evaluate the reverse, since I can't go back in time and throw PS1 games or Mahler symphonies in front of my 8-year-old self -- but there's plenty of stuff I like now that I wouldn't have understood or been competent to engage with as a kid. Because of that (and other issues), the whole thing about things "aging well/badly" doesn't have a whole lot of resonance for me.
This isn't directed at you, but more the general discussion:
When you have a concept that you think is great and explains something perfectly, and someone says "Hmmm, I don't think that way of describing things works for me", you can either call them an idiot or a freak for deviating from what "everyone knows" is true, or consider that maybe the concept is flawed in some way.
The original phrase isn't "the exception that proves the rule" (which is nonsensical), but the exception that improves the rule -- the idea that when people object to something or when contradictory evidence is found, taking that objection on board makes us smarter and wiser. Isn't that worth some consideration?
EDIT: Being a grownup definitely has lots of upsides, and "fun" isn't the only point of life anyway -- there are things just as rewarding as fun, maybe more so.
Because we all know kids love and hate the same things adults love and hate.
I don't think anyone is claiming that, and I think you've got your straw man backwards (the adults should come first in the sentence).
Well, no, that's essentially been the argument presented by a select few. Either you hate a game back then AND now, or you love a game back then AND now. And no possibility of any other arrangement. That if you played a bad game back then, you surely hated it as you hate it today.
Which I think is ludicrous. You can still love things you loved as a kid as an adult, too, but a number of us have revisted things we loved as a kid and are now like, "Yeah, that's not as good as I remembered." Not everything. I still think the G.I. Joe cartoon is cool (although today I find the pacing is a lot quicker than it was as a kid, damn ADHD), and Super Mario Bros will be forever timeless. Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors , not so much.
I consumed every cartoon on the air back then and loved just about all of them. I revisted many of them over the last several years, and while I certainly don't regret watching them back then (had to do something to put off homework), I can't watch a good chunk of them now.
Well, no, that's been the argument presented by a select few. Either you hate a game back then AND now, or you love a game back then AND now. And no possibility of any other arrangement. That if you played a bad game back then, you surely hated it as you hate it today.
Would I spoil the fun if I tell you that was twisted from what I actually said?
If you no longer like something, it's because YOU changed, not what you used to like. "Aged poorly" implies what you used to like is what has changed, which is a fallacy.
Is that any easier to understand? I don't think I can simplify it any more.
Comments
Originally posted by: Guntz
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.
Well... when I EXPLICITLY ask if you are being literal AND you reply "literal statement", with no qualifications... am I supposed to assume you are telling the truth, or being facetious?
When you are the guy that doesn't accept the commonly used idioms, it makes it hard to read whether you are being serious, or not, when you give a point-blank reply that then in this quoted post you completely unwind as a lie.
(both on the "any platform" and "any game" standpoint, when you readily admit you haven't even played the games I'm asking about)
If you don't want us to assume that you're speaking literally when you make these statements, then don't reply that YES you were making a literal statement... (you don't really get to flip this one around on me, when I took your seemingly clear response at face value )
Did I say "last 10 years"? Pretty sure I said this decade, which is now 6 years in. RE4 is way too old to be part of that definition.
In before the lock.
I hope not. It's been a good discussion.
That's fine. 8 pages of berating the guy who disagrees. There's so much more to add to this topic
I don't see it as berating. He's being challenged on a position he's stated in the past, one that, to put it nicely, needs some explaining.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but part and parcel of that is being able to back it up if you want it taken seriously.
And what's with this 8 pages bullshit. 100 posts per page or GTFO.
I simply forgot that for a lot of people, newer includes all the 1% stuff like new cartridge releases and indie games. To me, when I think new games, I think 3D HD PS4/Xbone/Steam/Vita/3DS games, you know, new platforms with new games on them. Silly of me to think the majority rule applied here too.
Did I say "last 10 years"? Pretty sure I said this decade, which is now 6 years in. RE4 is way too old to be part of that definition.
OK, again, clarify... are you saying "1% stuff like new cartridg release" and "indie games" as separate statements, or does the "1% stuff" apply to both cart releases AND indie games, in your assessment?
Indie games are a huge industry, at least in terms of quantity of available releases. (not in dollars, necessarily, since they sell at a steep discount, in general, compared to larger releases)
In terms of the latter... I suppose that is a valid interpretation of what you said, though I suspect I am not alone in having read your statement as being about releases within the last decade (i.e. last 10 years), rather than within the 2010's, specifically. My bad, I guess, for misunderstanding your meaning. (still stands, though, that a huge, huge quantity of indie releases exist in the last 6 years that completely invalidate your otherwise absolute statement upthread)
If you wanted your point to be just about AAA titles, then you should have said as much instead of saying LITERALLY "ANY game, ANY system" and then clearly replying that you meant that literally
Originally posted by: Tulpa
I hope not. It's been a good discussion.
Not really. It's been a worthless discussion as nobody here has really learned anything.
I'm gonna put my argument in a nutshell one last time.
I'm trying to explain an abstract concept that it is solely on you to decide if a game is too old to be playable or not. Some of us like old games, this site is devoted to them. Not everyone thinks that way. The existence of newer games doesn't inherently change whether an older game is still enjoyable to some people.
That's fine. 8 pages of berating the guy who disagrees. There's so much more to add to this topic
I don't see it as berating. He's being challenged on a position he's stated in the past, one that, to put it nicely, needs some explaining.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but part and parcel of that is being able to back it up if you want it taken seriously.
And what's with this 8 pages bullshit. 100 posts per page or GTFO.
Understood. I guess I was being a bit hyperbolic. Sorry. Im gonna blame the booze
I played Goldeneye until I beat every single level, and unlocked every single cheat. That may of taken me an entire year.
I played GTA III without any outside help and spent tens of hours trying to find every hidden package (I got to 97)
You couldn't pay me to do either of those things again. But I probably will go and unlock every medal on expert (again) in Star Fox 64 3D. In fact the idea of that excites me
Now, did I secretly hate Goldeneye and GTA III, making me some sort of masochist who was lying to myself about having all that fun. Or did those games just age worse than SF64?
...also I should point out I did go back and beat and unlock everything for Perfect Dark again recently... on 360. Probably because I could actually see what was going on and I had a controller and controller scheme that was worth a shit
Something that is quite important too is that recognizing in a way or another that an aspect of a game 'aged poorly' doesn't mean you no longer like the game, and it doesn't make it automatically a bad game. You seem to be lumping things in one camp or the other (good games vs bad games), while it is not necessarily what's being talk about.
Since I ever said it in a thread somewhere, yes, I think some aspects of Goldeneye007 have 'aged poorly', and I'm not even an adept of the genre. Still, I personally love the game and still enjoy playing it very much. But, I'm not surprised by others reaction to the game, like Brock that played the shit out of the game, but that won't come back to it today.
I don't need to explain his opinion by saying he's shallow or that he tricked himself in loving the game in the past, I get exactly why he said what he said.
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.
No one disputes that. When it's not only me who had a change in perception but, instead, people in general collectively shifted their perceptions, then we have a phrase for describing that. You're too hung up on it being meaningless for one person and one particular game title when it's always been about generally shared perceptions. You're arguing against people who never said what you thought they said.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
OK, again, clarify... are you saying "1% stuff like new cartridg release" and "indie games" as separate statements, or does the "1% stuff" apply to both cart releases AND indie games, in your assessment?
Indie games are a huge industry, at least in terms of quantity of available releases. (not in dollars, necessarily, since they sell at a steep discount, in general, compared to larger releases)
In terms of the latter... I suppose that is a valid interpretation of what you said, though I suspect I am not alone in having read your statement as being about releases within the last decade (i.e. last 10 years), rather than within the 2010's, specifically. My bad, I guess, for misunderstanding your meaning. (still stands, though, that a huge, huge quantity of indie releases exist in the last 6 years that completely invalidate your otherwise absolute statement upthread)
If you wanted your point to be just about AAA titles, then you should have said as much instead of saying LITERALLY "ANY game, ANY system" and then clearly replying that you meant that literally
Yes I meant AAA releases. I used to like them 10 - 15 years ago, not anymore.
Similarly, I was already a PC FPS player (still am) so Goldeneye 007 was already very crude to me at launch but I still play it somewhat frequently and enjoy it to this day. I can see why people would say that it aged poorly, but the game itself is just a fun for me. Back then they were proud to show off NPCs with randomized faces and other NPCs with different/reconizable faces, so they stuck them in the intro even with horribly low texture detail and polygon counts. It looks bad enough that no one would have wasted programming effort to do that these days even if they were programming on an older platform like that. It was wasting resources to show how UNconvincing their character models were. No one is impressed even considering the console and what had been done at the time, so it "aged poorly."
Remember, it didn't take much to impress back then. Some basketball game on N64 was the first to have uniquely recognizable players based on the real player faces, but that is simply not impressive enough to matter now even in context when looking at the limitations of the platform.
OK, again, clarify... are you saying "1% stuff like new cartridg release" and "indie games" as separate statements, or does the "1% stuff" apply to both cart releases AND indie games, in your assessment?
Indie games are a huge industry, at least in terms of quantity of available releases. (not in dollars, necessarily, since they sell at a steep discount, in general, compared to larger releases)
In terms of the latter... I suppose that is a valid interpretation of what you said, though I suspect I am not alone in having read your statement as being about releases within the last decade (i.e. last 10 years), rather than within the 2010's, specifically. My bad, I guess, for misunderstanding your meaning. (still stands, though, that a huge, huge quantity of indie releases exist in the last 6 years that completely invalidate your otherwise absolute statement upthread)
If you wanted your point to be just about AAA titles, then you should have said as much instead of saying LITERALLY "ANY game, ANY system" and then clearly replying that you meant that literally
Yes I meant AAA releases. I used to like them 10 - 15 years ago, not anymore.
It sounds more like you meant to say "current mainstream" to me.
Originally posted by: Guntz
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.
That's not really cool, but okay, I'll just step aside from this discussion.
I can't stand any Mario Kart after Double Dash and still play the the N64 and SNES games regularly. I own them all and always give them a shot, but to me there is just nothing like Mario Kart 64 Battle Mode and the music in the original Super Mario Kart. It's very weird to me to see it used as an example of a game that aged poorly.
Similarly, I was already a PC FPS player (still am) so Goldeneye 007 was already very crude to me at launch but I still play it somewhat frequently and enjoy it to this day. I can see why people would say that it aged poorly, but the game itself is just a fun for me. Back then they were proud to show off NPCs with randomized faces and other NPCs with different/reconizable faces, so they stuck them in the intro even with horribly low texture detail and polygon counts. It looks bad enough that no one would have wasted programming effort to do that these days even if they were programming on an older platform like that. It was wasting resources to show how UNconvincing their character models were. No one is impressed even considering the console and what had been done at the time, so it "aged poorly."
Remember, it didn't take much to impress back then. Some basketball game on N64 was the first to have uniquely recognizable players based on the real player faces, but that is simply not impressive enough to matter now even in context when looking at the limitations of the platform.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
Originally posted by: quest4nes
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
Again, that's your opinion, not a fact. Technically speaking, yeah sure, MK8 is graphically and technically more advanced than MK64. Is it better? That's a subjective opinion. If you ask me, I think MK64 looks better because it has a more reserved art style and it doesn't assault your eyes with too much stuff on screen.
Also again, there are PLENTY of people who say the exact same negative things about Super Mario Kart. Heck, I think we've had discussions about it here.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
Again, that's your opinion, not a fact. Technically speaking, yeah sure, MK8 is graphically and technically more advanced than MK64. Is it better? That's a subjective opinion. If you ask me, I think MK64 looks better because it has a more reserved art style and it doesn't assault your eyes with too much stuff on screen.
Also again, there are PLENTY of people who say the exact same negative things about Super Mario Kart. Heck, I think we've had discussions about it here.
mario kart 64 looks better than mario kart 8? hahahahahahaha. Thats a new one.
Yes it is my opinion. Along with the opinion of mostly everyone, that mario kart 8 controls and looks better than mario kart 64.
When people talking about games and aging well it is primarily focused early 3d polygon games. SNES and NES have a few games that look bad, but mostly the art style is different and looks good today still. Early polygon 3d animation does not. Thats not saying the game cant be fun still though. So no need to try and make that point.
How about lets just consider your opinion one of a kind and lets move on.
yet again games "aging" isnt literal. Its an expression to describe what we are trying to get through your skull.
I can't stand any Mario Kart after Double Dash and still play the the N64 and SNES games regularly. I own them all and always give them a shot, but to me there is just nothing like Mario Kart 64 Battle Mode and the music in the original Super Mario Kart. It's very weird to me to see it used as an example of a game that aged poorly.
Similarly, I was already a PC FPS player (still am) so Goldeneye 007 was already very crude to me at launch but I still play it somewhat frequently and enjoy it to this day. I can see why people would say that it aged poorly, but the game itself is just a fun for me. Back then they were proud to show off NPCs with randomized faces and other NPCs with different/reconizable faces, so they stuck them in the intro even with horribly low texture detail and polygon counts. It looks bad enough that no one would have wasted programming effort to do that these days even if they were programming on an older platform like that. It was wasting resources to show how UNconvincing their character models were. No one is impressed even considering the console and what had been done at the time, so it "aged poorly."
Remember, it didn't take much to impress back then. Some basketball game on N64 was the first to have uniquely recognizable players based on the real player faces, but that is simply not impressive enough to matter now even in context when looking at the limitations of the platform.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
I guess I'm lucky that I've always had my twin brother and one of several friends who still love Mario Kart 64, so Block Fort Battle Mode gets a lot of play. Racing really only interests us in single player. We often have four willing players and one of us will sit out/spectate because it plays so much better in 3p.
My main issue with the newer games is paralysis of choice and over-balancing. Why do I want to spend forever deciding between every little combination of things for my kart only to have it not matter because being in the lead or being better than everyone else is automatically penalized? I don't want to try hundreds of combinations to find my "favorite." That's a chore to me and not how I want to have fun. It's my major turn-off to the newer games.
Hopefully we'll setup the Elgato with UltraHDMI and share a Mario Kart 64 match with you guys soon.
I can't stand any Mario Kart after Double Dash and still play the the N64 and SNES games regularly. I own them all and always give them a shot, but to me there is just nothing like Mario Kart 64 Battle Mode and the music in the original Super Mario Kart. It's very weird to me to see it used as an example of a game that aged poorly.
Similarly, I was already a PC FPS player (still am) so Goldeneye 007 was already very crude to me at launch but I still play it somewhat frequently and enjoy it to this day. I can see why people would say that it aged poorly, but the game itself is just a fun for me. Back then they were proud to show off NPCs with randomized faces and other NPCs with different/reconizable faces, so they stuck them in the intro even with horribly low texture detail and polygon counts. It looks bad enough that no one would have wasted programming effort to do that these days even if they were programming on an older platform like that. It was wasting resources to show how UNconvincing their character models were. No one is impressed even considering the console and what had been done at the time, so it "aged poorly."
Remember, it didn't take much to impress back then. Some basketball game on N64 was the first to have uniquely recognizable players based on the real player faces, but that is simply not impressive enough to matter now even in context when looking at the limitations of the platform.
I love super mario kart on snes. SNES art styles have aged just fine to me. Its easy to pickup and play still.
Mario kart 64 is graphically hard to look at after youve played newer ones. Tracks are bland and not as creative. Mario Kart 8 is great. The controls are amazing. They finally nailed the skid controls again. Now the battle mode sucks. But I dont know about you but I dont have someone to sit and play battle mode with that often so I never play those modes. Id always choose snes mario kart battle mode though anyway.
I guess I'm lucky that I've always had my twin brother and one of several friends who still love Mario Kart 64, so Block Fort Battle Mode gets a lot of play. Racing really only interests us in single player. We often have four willing players and one of us will sit out/spectate because it plays so much better in 3p.
My main issue with the newer games is paralysis of choice and over-balancing. Why do I want to spend forever deciding between every little combination of things for my kart only to have it not matter because being in the lead or being better than everyone else is automatically penalized? I don't want to try hundreds of combinations to find my "favorite." That's a chore to me and not how I want to have fun. It's my major turn-off to the newer games.
Hopefully we'll setup the Elgato with UltraHDMI and share a Mario Kart 64 match with you guys soon.
I dont like cart customization at all actually. Thats why I have my cart of choice and stick with it. They could do away with that aspect of it imo. I dont really consider that part of the experience of mario kart though.
I dont mind having the cart choices. Just dont like the aspect of wheels and gliders customization.
But if you play 8, just pick the mach 8 cart and go cyber slick tires and call it a day.
What's sad is you're being narrow-minded too. SNES and NES games aren't universally recognized as looking good, just like not everyone thinks early 3D is ugly.
early 3D is ugly. how is that even debatable?
oh yeah im speaking to the one person in the world(im sure theyll be someone else who will try and be the 2nd), that thinks visually mario kart 64 looks better than mario kart 8
Ill never forget you said that. So funny man
SNES and NES have a few games that look bad, but mostly the art style is different and looks good today still. Early polygon 3d animation does not.
I dunno, I think early 3D arcade games like I, Robot and Hard Drivin' still look great for what they are. They're not as realistic as modern graphics, but realism and technical quality aren't the same thing as aesthetic success. Updated graphics wouldn't "improve them" in any way.
The assumption being made over and over again is that better technical benchmarks = better graphics = more realism = better game. But I think a lot of Dreamcast/PS2/XBox-era games look really corny and overblown -- like listening to music with the bass and treble cranked all the way up -- and I find them unpleasant to look at even if they look more "realistic" and impressive at first glance vs. the previous generation.
Sometimes I honestly prefer the simpler polygonal graphics of early 3D, because the hardware limits led to results that I find more pleasant to experience for long periods of time. I don't want "realism" or high specs as an end in and of themselves, any more than I want to watch movies at 48 fps. They're a means to a potential end, and sometimes better specs seem to correlate with less satisfactory results, for a variety of reasons.
SNES and NES have a few games that look bad, but mostly the art style is different and looks good today still. Early polygon 3d animation does not.
I dunno, I think early 3D arcade games like I, Robot and Hard Drivin' still look great for what they are. They're not as realistic as modern graphics, but realism and technical quality aren't the same thing as aesthetic success. Updated graphics wouldn't "improve them" in any way.
The assumption being made over and over again is that better technical benchmarks = better graphics = more realism = better game. But I think a lot of Dreamcast/PS2/XBox-era games look really corny and overblown -- like listening to music with the bass and treble cranked all the way up -- and I find them unpleasant to look at even if they look more "realistic" and impressive at first glance vs. the previous generation.
Sometimes I honestly prefer the simpler polygonal graphics of early 3D, because the hardware limits led to results that I find more pleasant to experience for long periods of time. I don't want "realism" or high specs as an end in and of themselves, any more than I want to watch movies at 48 fps. They're a means to a potential end, and sometimes better specs seem to correlate with less satisfactory results, for a variety of reasons.
I highly respect your opinion bronze, and will refer you to my chart I posted up above. Would you say every game you've ever played would be represented by a straight line? Or would some/most/all of them be angled downwards? And if so, would the lines all be parallel to one another?
I totally agree that not everyone is going to be impacted by obsolete mechanics to the same degree. Most people would shake their head at the thought of having to do a stair command to move up Dragon Warrior floors, whileas some would find that very nostalgic, or have the patience of a god. But I think the latter are going to be definite exceptions to the rule...
On another note, I'm in the camp that thinks Mario Kart 64 is the best in the series (though I've really only put significant time in the DS one since), and that SMK was nearly unplayable in comparison (the irony being I'm the SNES guy, who also placed it in both of my contests). But, I played the 4 player mode earlier this year and none of us could tell where in the fuck we were going. That was a rude awakening to my nostalgia.
Either way, Mario Kart games age. Might depend on the title, and the person, but I guarantee that's a constant.
I highly respect your opinion bronze, and will refer you to my chart I posted up above. Would you say every game you've ever played would be represented by a straight line? Or would some/most/all of them be angled downwards? And if so, would the lines all be parallel to one another?
Thanks! It's an interesting question -- I'd say most of them are either a straight line, or collectively angled downwards in parallel, depending on whether life itself is simply less fun as we get older (what a pleasant thought!). There are a few games that have improved because I now understand how to play them; I can't think of any that have fallen off a cliff.
One thing that's changed as I've gotten older is that I care a lot less about whether a game is "good" or not, and am more interested in something like "Will playing this game be an effective and rewarding use of my time?" And part of that is because my main priority is beating games...
...actually, scratch that part about getting older -- I was the same way as a teenager, too! For me it's always mainly been about whether games were accessible to mastery (as I define it personally: I'm not using pegboy's ultra-high standards here). I want to beat games, to experience what they have to offer, and then move on.
The number of games I actually enjoy as an experience in and of themselves is rather small; I can't think of many games where I would want to hang out in their world for its own sake. Multiplayer gaming is less goal-oriented, but I also lived in a rural area as a kid and was mostly a solo gamer, so I don't have a lot of fond multiplayer memories to begin with -- most of those come from playing with my now-wife, honestly.
So I think good vs. bad is, in some ways, a point of indifference for me. I gravitate towards games that don't feel 100% mapped-out -- where I feel like I can discover something for myself -- and where I feel like my skill set is useful. So when it comes to 3D titles, early PS1 games like Kileak and Krazy Ivan are a good fit for me -- much more so than "better" games that arrived later and either make me motion-sick or just don't map well onto the way I play games.
BTW I take much the same attitude towards movies and music: I don't really care whether something is good or bad, as much as whether it's interesting (that's not really the right word, but it's close). One thing I am a raging purist about is tennis games, though...and I still hate black box Tennis just as much as I did when I was a kid.
Kung Fu and Karateka. Both were best sellers in their time. Both were released on multiple platforms. Only one of them is still fun to play now. Was I subject to mass delusion while I enjoyed the other?
Either that, or you sat there and played it and secretly seethed and hated the one you hate today. Because we all know kids love and hate the same things adults love and hate.
Life is less fun when we get older?
Wait, as an adult, I don't have to ask my parents for NES games (or any games), I can have chocolate for breakfast, I can drive whereever I want, and can finally watch Skinemax without having it all scrambled.
Being a grownup rules.
Because we all know kids love and hate the same things adults love and hate.
I don't think anyone is claiming that, and I think you've got your straw man backwards (the adults should come first in the sentence).
Look, I can only say that this adult -- i.e. me -- has basically the same feelings now towards the media products he consumed as a kid. There's no way to evaluate the reverse, since I can't go back in time and throw PS1 games or Mahler symphonies in front of my 8-year-old self -- but there's plenty of stuff I like now that I wouldn't have understood or been competent to engage with as a kid. Because of that (and other issues), the whole thing about things "aging well/badly" doesn't have a whole lot of resonance for me.
This isn't directed at you, but more the general discussion:
When you have a concept that you think is great and explains something perfectly, and someone says "Hmmm, I don't think that way of describing things works for me", you can either call them an idiot or a freak for deviating from what "everyone knows" is true, or consider that maybe the concept is flawed in some way.
The original phrase isn't "the exception that proves the rule" (which is nonsensical), but the exception that improves the rule -- the idea that when people object to something or when contradictory evidence is found, taking that objection on board makes us smarter and wiser. Isn't that worth some consideration?
EDIT: Being a grownup definitely has lots of upsides, and "fun" isn't the only point of life anyway -- there are things just as rewarding as fun, maybe more so.
Because we all know kids love and hate the same things adults love and hate.
I don't think anyone is claiming that, and I think you've got your straw man backwards (the adults should come first in the sentence).
Well, no, that's essentially been the argument presented by a select few. Either you hate a game back then AND now, or you love a game back then AND now. And no possibility of any other arrangement. That if you played a bad game back then, you surely hated it as you hate it today.
Which I think is ludicrous. You can still love things you loved as a kid as an adult, too, but a number of us have revisted things we loved as a kid and are now like, "Yeah, that's not as good as I remembered." Not everything. I still think the G.I. Joe cartoon is cool (although today I find the pacing is a lot quicker than it was as a kid, damn ADHD), and Super Mario Bros will be forever timeless. Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors , not so much.
I consumed every cartoon on the air back then and loved just about all of them. I revisted many of them over the last several years, and while I certainly don't regret watching them back then (had to do something to put off homework), I can't watch a good chunk of them now.
Originally posted by: Tulpa
Well, no, that's been the argument presented by a select few. Either you hate a game back then AND now, or you love a game back then AND now. And no possibility of any other arrangement. That if you played a bad game back then, you surely hated it as you hate it today.
Would I spoil the fun if I tell you that was twisted from what I actually said?
If you no longer like something, it's because YOU changed, not what you used to like. "Aged poorly" implies what you used to like is what has changed, which is a fallacy.
Is that any easier to understand? I don't think I can simplify it any more.