What does it mean for a game to "age well" or not?
What does it mean for a game to "age well" or not?
This GameRanx video said that Shadow of the Colossus didn't age well, which I completely disagree with. The only explanation I can imagine is that I have a different definition for "aged well" than some other people.
For a game to have aged well I say that it must seem noticeably more modern than its contemporaries at the time so that it seems like a more modern game than you would expect for the given platform/era (visuals and/or gameplay). For a game to have aged poorly then it must appear worse than you would expect or remember on a given platform/era. With this, I don't see how it's possible to say that this game aged poorly. It's easily the most impressive game I can point to on the PlayStation 2. It's clearly ahead of its time.
Playing The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess HD and seeing how Link's horse, Epona, handles makes me want to facepalm. When you turn at low speed your horse will stay in a forward-walking animation even as the horse spins left or right. In contrast, Agro (Wander's horse in SotC) has to shed momentum/speed and take appropriate footsteps to shift weight and change direction, all while feeling extremely playable and realistic. They even bothered to animate the mane so that it has momentum and weight! The expansive visuals are amazing. Sure, the tricks have been done before: The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker also has distant 2D objects seamlessly transition into fully explorable islands and ruins, but nothing like the scale of SoTC.
To think that they accomplished all this with enough performance to spare for convincing fur effects, 480p progressive scan 16:9 widescreen, motion blur, and bloom lighting that simulated HDR blows my mind.
So, is there another meaning for "aged poorly?" What do you guys think makes a game age well or poorly?
This GameRanx video said that Shadow of the Colossus didn't age well, which I completely disagree with. The only explanation I can imagine is that I have a different definition for "aged well" than some other people.
For a game to have aged well I say that it must seem noticeably more modern than its contemporaries at the time so that it seems like a more modern game than you would expect for the given platform/era (visuals and/or gameplay). For a game to have aged poorly then it must appear worse than you would expect or remember on a given platform/era. With this, I don't see how it's possible to say that this game aged poorly. It's easily the most impressive game I can point to on the PlayStation 2. It's clearly ahead of its time.
Playing The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess HD and seeing how Link's horse, Epona, handles makes me want to facepalm. When you turn at low speed your horse will stay in a forward-walking animation even as the horse spins left or right. In contrast, Agro (Wander's horse in SotC) has to shed momentum/speed and take appropriate footsteps to shift weight and change direction, all while feeling extremely playable and realistic. They even bothered to animate the mane so that it has momentum and weight! The expansive visuals are amazing. Sure, the tricks have been done before: The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker also has distant 2D objects seamlessly transition into fully explorable islands and ruins, but nothing like the scale of SoTC.
To think that they accomplished all this with enough performance to spare for convincing fur effects, 480p progressive scan 16:9 widescreen, motion blur, and bloom lighting that simulated HDR blows my mind.
So, is there another meaning for "aged poorly?" What do you guys think makes a game age well or poorly?
Comments
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
Rule of thumb, it isn't as fun as you remember, or has crippling weaknesses that you only now notice, or maybe mechanis that seem unrefined and cumbersome. Best examples I can think of are N64 games with terrible graphics, terrible controls, and horrible pacing. Nearly everyone will agree that Goldeneye did not age well for every reason above.
I acutally think GE aged well. Sure, the graphics aren't going to be as good as you remember them, but the control, pacing, and fun factor are still all there in my opinion. Having said that, it almost always applies to first gen 3D games simply due to you remembering them looking better than they are.
I don't really like the term though because it's all relative. I'm sure a lot of people think Super Mario Kart (or GE) aged poorly, and I would initially agree if you are use to playing Mario Kart 8 (new gen FPS) all the time. But if you play the game(s) for a while you realize you can typically shake that 'aged' feeling pretty quick.
But of course, I'm the kinda of guy that picks up a game and not worry how "old" it feels. I know their limitations from what time period and hardware they came from, so it doesn't bother me as much as most people. Games have always been as good as I remembered them.
Thinking about this more, I think that's why people jump on my case when I say that SNES Starfox still holds up. lol (No hate guys, it's just my opinion.)
Rule of thumb, it isn't as fun as you remember, or has crippling weaknesses that you only now notice, or maybe mechanis that seem unrefined and cumbersome. Best examples I can think of are N64 games with terrible graphics, terrible controls, and horrible pacing. Nearly everyone will agree that Goldeneye did not age well for every reason above.
Well, that's just it: it must be relative. The only relation that makes sense is contemporaries for the platform/era. For example, The Last Guardian was just released and seems to have more crippling camera and control issues than its predecessors including SotC. Part of this is the game trying to keep your character and his partner together on the screen or to make sure you see something, but SotC also had to keep the player and colossus or giant ruins in view despite a massive difference in scale.
TLG's camera makes it impossible to see what you are trying to see and will repeatedly throw off your jump trajectories or refuse to even move in the direction you need even with manual control and no obstructions. It feels worse than early 3D platformers before Super Mario 64 and Crash Bandicoot. If that were the only criteria then I'd have to say that this days-old game "didn't age well." Yes, it does feel like a throwback. SotC doesn't feel like a throwback to the standards set by other PS2-era games because it easily exceeds them.
Yes, I would agree it's all relative. ie Tomb Raider was HUGE during its time, yet now will feel cumbersome and slow because it's controls and platforming precede the now-standard Prince of Persia Sands of Time setup. As in tank controls have not aged well in relation to games that evolved the formula
^^I agree about how a game can be big at the time but then feel clunky years later..that's only because you now have something new to compare it to where as at the time, there was nothing more modern. For me though, games don't really age but people do. The problem is that sometimes people naturally compare whatever is modern to things from 10, 15, 20+ years ago. A good game is a good game regardless when it came out.
With the TR example, I'd say the same thing about Crash Bandicoot. The game itself still holds up IMO but the graphics and controls feel a bit rough. The newly released gameplay footage from the CB 1 - 3 remakes looks awesome. It shows the very first level from CB remade and the side by side comparison is just cool to look at. It will be interesting to see these good platforming classics brought back to life in this generation.
IMO SotC has aged just fine. Just for the record OP, Shadow of the Colossus isn't just on PS2. There's a PS3 SotC and ICO HD remaster you can play so the "age" isn't as profound.
Let's put aside the fact that the animation is beautiful and the atmosphere is unique and haunting.
Shadow of the Colossus still looks inarguably amazing because the horse animation is top-notch and puts modern games to shame. I can only think of a few games that have handled horses as well, Metal Gear Solid V? Red Dead Redemption?
Then there's the fact that very few games have handled 'scale' as well as SotC has. I can't think of too many games that have achieved that. Katamari Damacy comes to mind ... I'm sure there's a few others.
But to say SotC aged poorly is just ... ignorant.
SOTC really baffles me. That youtuber must be one of those 60FPS-or-more asshats that everyone has turned into these days. SOTC is a FAR better game with its chugging framerate. Haven't you ever watched a good movie where the action is so intense, the framerate gets a bit choppy as the ground shakes and the craziness continues? Shadow of the Colossus is that exact type of experience. The game is so epic, the PS2 struggles to keep up with it. That is the sign of a truly memorable game.
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
No, I think there is something to it. Maybe not consensus, but it's definitely a thing. I doubt anyone thinks Super Mario Bros. 3 aged poorly, while the same cannot be said for Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Fox, or Mortal Kombat.
Did you just say Sonic? Have you seen the hundreds of fan hacks of Sonic 1 over at Sonic Retro? That's the last game I'd ever think has aged poorly.
I still stand by my statement. Video games aging at all is a complete load of horseshit. All that we're seeing is extremely shallow morons berating video game history.
No, I think there is something to it. Maybe not consensus, but it's definitely a thing. I doubt anyone thinks Super Mario Bros. 3 aged poorly, while the same cannot be said for Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Fox, or Mortal Kombat.
Did you just say Sonic? Have you seen the hundreds of fan hacks of Sonic 1 over at Sonic Retro? That's the last game I'd ever think has aged poorly.
I still stand by my statement. Video games aging at all is a complete load of horseshit. All that we're seeing is extremely shallow morons berating video game history.
100% agreed guntz. It's like people just want to use this term to shit on the history of video games.
No, I think there is something to it. Maybe not consensus, but it's definitely a thing. I doubt anyone thinks Super Mario Bros. 3 aged poorly, while the same cannot be said for Sonic the Hedgehog, Star Fox, or Mortal Kombat.
Did you just say Sonic? Have you seen the hundreds of fan hacks of Sonic 1 over at Sonic Retro? That's the last game I'd ever think has aged poorly.
I still stand by my statement. Video games aging at all is a complete load of horseshit. All that we're seeing is extremely shallow morons berating video game history.
Never heard of Sonic Retro, and I wouldn't doubt it receiving hacks as the cult of Sonic has always gone strong. Or maybe they're hacking the game because it wasn't very good in the first place, but had the potential to be with stronger level design
Would you say Super Metroid has aged better than Mortal Kombat? Has Jurassic Park aged better than Robin Hood Prince of Thieves? Pearl Jam's Ten over C&C Music Factory's Gonna Make You Sweat?
Would you say Super Metroid has aged better than Mortal Kombat? Has Jurassic Park aged better than Robin Hood Prince of Thieves? Pearl Jam's Ten over C&C Music Factory's Gonna Make You Sweat?
My picks: Super Metroid over MK, JP over RH if we're talking blu-rays, easily PJ's Ten
I also agree with everything TDI posted above me ^.
I think one thing people seem to forget is that sometimes a certain aspect of the game might not age well. For example, the original Tomb Raider is still one of my favorite games off all time. The game play, level design, story line and overall experience still hold up very well today. However, the graphics can sometimes be pretty difficult to look at. I think it would be fair to say the graphics haven't aged well despite the fact that the game is still amazing. If I was going to pick an aspect of SOTC that hasn't aged well, I would pick the camera. In the time that it was released, it did everything that one would expect it to, but by today's standards it can be a little cumbersome. But that doesn't mean the game itself hasn't aged well.
I'm a huge fan myself and actually plan on playing through Tomb Raider IV for the first time next year. But that places us very stricly in the minority
Let's look at it another way. How many of your friends would have a blast playing Super Bomberman 2 with you right now? In my experience, most of them. Maybe all of them. How many would play Tomb Raider for 20 minutes? Hell, how many people on NA, a retro gamer haven, would do those things?
I think one thing people seem to forget is that sometimes a certain aspect of the game might not age well. For example, the original Tomb Raider is still one of my favorite games off all time. The game play, level design, story line and overall experience still hold up very well today. However, the graphics can sometimes be pretty difficult to look at. I think it would be fair to say the graphics haven't aged well despite the fact that the game is still amazing. If I was going to pick an aspect of SOTC that hasn't aged well, I would pick the camera. In the time that it was released, it did everything that one would expect it to, but by today's standards it can be a little cumbersome. But that doesn't mean the game itself hasn't aged well.
I'm a huge fan myself and actually plan on playing through Tomb Raider IV for the first time next year. But that places us very stricly in the minority
Let's look at it another way. How many of your friends would have a blast playing Super Bomberman 2 with you right now? In my experience, most of them. Maybe all of them. How many would play Tomb Raider for 20 minutes? Hell, how many people on NA, a retro gamer haven, would do those things?
Good question. But I want to add this. For those people who say "no." How many of them played through the game when it was brand new and just released (or within a year or so of that time)? If they didn't play it back then, I don't feel they are in a position to say whether or not the game as aged well.
Even though we won't all agree on the definition how how games age well or poorly, let me go a head an explain my view:
So, in my opinion, you cannot say whether a game as aged well or not unless you have the experience of playing it when it was new and again today. To get back to your question, I personally don't know anyone who enjoyed the original Tomb Raider back in 1996, but hates it today. I'm sure there are some people our there who feel that way, but I would be willing to believe it's uncommon.
Tank controls in Resident Evil. That's one example that I hear people constantly say "hasn't aged well." However, nearly everyone I hear saying that didn't play those games when they first came out. They grew up on modern RE controls and wanted to try some of the older games. When they couldn't get used to the different tank controls on the older games, they complain that they aged poorly. But to me, their opinions of those older games are meaningless because I can pick up any old RE game and play it with no issue. In fact, due to the fixed camera angles, the tank controls are needed to prevent you from changing direction every time the camera shifts to a different view.
I think one thing people seem to forget is that sometimes a certain aspect of the game might not age well. For example, the original Tomb Raider is still one of my favorite games off all time. The game play, level design, story line and overall experience still hold up very well today. However, the graphics can sometimes be pretty difficult to look at. I think it would be fair to say the graphics haven't aged well despite the fact that the game is still amazing. If I was going to pick an aspect of SOTC that hasn't aged well, I would pick the camera. In the time that it was released, it did everything that one would expect it to, but by today's standards it can be a little cumbersome. But that doesn't mean the game itself hasn't aged well.
I'm a huge fan myself and actually plan on playing through Tomb Raider IV for the first time next year. But that places us very stricly in the minority
Let's look at it another way. How many of your friends would have a blast playing Super Bomberman 2 with you right now? In my experience, most of them. Maybe all of them. How many would play Tomb Raider for 20 minutes? Hell, how many people on NA, a retro gamer haven, would do those things?
Good question. But I want to add this. For those people who say "no." How many of them played through the game when it was brand new and just released (or within a year or so of that time)? If they didn't play it back then, I don't feel they are in a position to say whether or not the game as aged well.
Even though we won't all agree on the definition how how games age well or poorly, let me go a head an explain my view:
So, in my opinion, you cannot say whether a game as aged well or not unless you have the experience of playing it when it was new and again today. To get back to your question, I personally don't know anyone who enjoyed the original Tomb Raider back in 1996, but hates it today. I'm sure there are some people our there who feel that way, but I would be willing to believe it's uncommon.
I don't know that I agree with that premise, but I'll go along with it for the sake of discussion.
If you had 100 people that played through Tomb Raider in 1996 (which wouldn't be difficult, the thing was a cultural landmark with ports to every system known to man, non-stop magazine coverage, deluxe releases, reboots, annual sequels, and a movie franchise), and you had them score it then, and then did the the same thing 20 years later. Then you had the same thing done with with Super Metroid or Super Mario Bros. 3. I would bet my life you see a bigger dip with Tomb Raider. And I bet you would see a massive dip with titles like Mortal Kombat or Goldeneye.
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
Never heard of Sonic Retro, and I wouldn't doubt it receiving hacks as the cult of Sonic has always gone strong. Or maybe they're hacking the game because it wasn't very good in the first place, but had the potential to be with stronger level design
Would you say Super Metroid has aged better than Mortal Kombat? Has Jurassic Park aged better than Robin Hood Prince of Thieves? Pearl Jam's Ten over C&C Music Factory's Gonna Make You Sweat?
Does that mean SMB1 wasn't very good in the first place, given the fact it is the single most hacked game in existence?
Your argument is flawed. None of those games are remotely similar. What does aging have to do with whether a game is good or not? A game is either good or not, time doesn't change that. If Mortal Kombat is shallow today, it was always shallow, just like it was back when it was first released.
Originally posted by: TDIRunner
I'll give one more example.
Tank controls in Resident Evil. That's one example that I hear people constantly say "hasn't aged well." However, nearly everyone I hear saying that didn't play those games when they first came out. They grew up on modern RE controls and wanted to try some of the older games. When they couldn't get used to the different tank controls on the older games, they complain that they aged poorly. But to me, their opinions of those older games are meaningless because I can pick up any old RE game and play it with no issue. In fact, due to the fixed camera angles, the tank controls are needed to prevent you from changing direction every time the camera shifts to a different view.
This is exactly what I'm getting at. "Aging" doesn't really exist in video games, because they are played. Functionality is a completely objective thing, it can't get worse over years as "better" examples are made. New almost never means better.
Now, to appease the people who think video games can age, the ONLY possible way they can is through cultural norms. When people say film and TV ages poorly, they usually speak about what was considered acceptable or not back then, typically when it contrasts with today's perception of acceptance. Video games too can have this effect, if they weren't tailored for kids for so long.
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
If you had 100 people that played through Tomb Raider in 1996 (which wouldn't be difficult, the thing was a cultural landmark with ports to every system known to man, non-stop magazine coverage, deluxe releases, reboots, annual sequels, and a movie franchise), and you had them score it then, and then did the the same thing 20 years later. Then you had the same thing done with with Super Metroid or Super Mario Bros. 3. I would bet my life you see a bigger dip with Tomb Raider. And I bet you would see a massive dip with titles like Mortal Kombat or Goldeneye.
This experiment is scientifically flawed. Why? If those 100 people were 10 years old in 1996, 20 years later, they would all be 30 years old. You cannot honestly tell me a 10 year old and a 30 year old have the exact same eyesight, hand-eye coordination, reflexes and even tastes. 20 years is a massive span of time for people.
I don't know that I agree with that premise, but I'll go along with it for the sake of discussion.
If you had 100 people that played through Tomb Raider in 1996 (which wouldn't be difficult, the thing was a cultural landmark with ports to every system known to man, non-stop magazine coverage, deluxe releases, reboots, annual sequels, and a movie franchise), and you had them score it then, and then did the the same thing 20 years later. Then you had the same thing done with with Super Metroid or Super Mario Bros. 3. I would bet my life you see a bigger dip with Tomb Raider. And I bet you would see a massive dip with titles like Mortal Kombat or Goldeneye.
I would genually be interested in seeing the results of an actual poll. Of course it would be difficult to get people to be honest in saying they actually played the games when they were new.
Also, I agree 100% that Super Metroid and SMB3 would have higher results, but I would be willing to make a small bet (by which I mean $1) that Tomb Raider would rank higher than you think it would.
But who knows? That's why I'm only betting a dollar.
Also, Goldeneye is another good example of a game that many say "hasn't aged well." But again, I disagree with those people because I feel the game still holds up well today. I would agree that the graphics haven't aged well, but that is only one aspect of a fantastic game.
Originally posted by: empire
The opposite of Goldeneye 64
We get it, you hate the N64. That has nothing to do with whether a game ages well or not.
Your argument is flawed. None of those games are remotely similar.
Tecmo Super Bowl and John Madden Football
Originally posted by: Brock Landers
Tecmo Super Bowl and John Madden Football
I don't play football games. I don't understand your point here.
Clearly, video games don't age, people simply get caught up in hype, play the "aged poorly" games once, play other games for 20 years, come back and claim their rose-tinted memories are more accurate than their current perception of said "aged poorly" game.
The opposite of Goldeneye 64
We get it, you hate the N64. That has nothing to do with whether a game ages well or not.
Clearly, video games don't age, people simply get caught up in hype, play the "aged poorly" games once, play other games for 20 years, come back and claim their rose-tinted memories are more accurate than their current perception of said "aged poorly" game.
Why are you so defensive about the subject? Many, many, many people will agree that Goldeneye is not as fun as they remember. I've seen it first-hand roughly (and by that I mean exactly) 100% of the time with 20+ people.
Yes, it's possible to enjoy a game when new and not enjoy it later on.
I'll give this example, Mario 64 and Sunshine, these are 3D platformers where movement is important. When Nintendo moved on to sunshine, they got rid of a few moves from 64 and added some new ones. So Mario 64 is still relevant because you can do different things than in Sunshine. Neither is necessarily better than the other but when they moved on to the newer one, it didn't completely replace the older one. If you could do everything in Sunshine that you could in 64 plus more, what point is there in going back? When they moved onto galaxy it was the same thing, added moves and took some away. You can't use FLUDD in galaxy, so if you want that experience again, you go back to sunshine.
If a game is no longer relevant because something better replaced it, it has aged poorly.
Why are you so defensive about the subject?
Because he doesn't understand the idiom.