Do videogames age?

[Skykid]

Blackoak's comment:

Hagane's comments about LttP reminded me that a lot (though not all) of the older games I liked really were intended for me at ages 8-15, not me at 32. Certainly not me at age 32 with the prior experience of all those tricks/limitations... ie meta-thinking about the game as a game. When I was young I didn't care that the open-endedness was an "illusion", I just wasn't thinking that way. It was a canvas for my imagination to roam upon.

I'm not making an argument about nostalgia, btw, I simply think that there's a time for a lot of these older classics and it isn't forever.

Personally I don't think games age in terms of how good (or bad) they are. Graphically, you can say something is technologically aged, but if something plays great twenty-five years ago, doesn't it still play just as well today?

I know the pre-playstation markets had a younger demographic, but I consider older games to be generally more challenging than most of everything today - one reason why really hard games seem to make a splash in gaming press.

Just curious how people think about this: do videogames age for you, have a sell-by-date, go off? To the point where you think "it's just too old, it was good then but not now."

[KAI]

8-15 kids don't know how to play games.

[CIT]

This is highly subjective, and really depends on the game and what your expectations as a gamer are.

I think the better question (or at least the one that makes it easier to identify some collective values for) would be: What makes a game timeless?

[soprano1]

No, i don't think they don't.
As an example, Final Fantasy VII. Looked ugly then, and looks worse now, but i still like to play it, despite not liking the story so much.

[KennyMan666]

if something plays great twenty-five years ago, doesn't it still play just as well today?

Not necessarily.

One doesn't have to look much further than the early 3D era console games to find several examples of stuff that really hasn't aged well. My go-to example is Goldeneye 007 for N64, as while it was a comparatively great game when it was first released, it really doesn't hold up anywhere near as well today. It's far from the only N64 example, and I'm sure the PlayStation has a lot of them as well but I never had a PlayStation back in the day. While I don't think a game gets worse due to graphics of its time being rendered woefully obsolete, early 3D really seems the generation that's gotten hit by it the worst.

To me, a great game is one that wasn't only great when compared to what was out when it was released, but still holds up as a great game when compared to what's out today.

[Hagane]

Yes, games definitely age as newer ones expand on them. Karate Champ was great and groundbreaking for its time, but as the genre evolved it became obsolete. There's no reason to play it today other than nostalgia when you have stuff like ST, Accent Core, KOF, etc. Same with Xevious or Space Invaders when you have Ketsui, Dragon Blaze, Garegga and others. Then there's the issue of our own age. As we grow we get more experience and develop knowledge and skills, and sometimes what we used to consider great (like me with TMNT arcade) later, with better judgment, becomes evidently poor.

Some games are timeless when they haven't been surpassed by posterior titles and are relevant still today, either because that was the highest point of the genre (or style within a genre) or because the genre itself died shortly afterwards and people moved on. Games like Super Turbo or Alien vs. Predator, for example. But that's relative; if for some reason planets aligned and Capcom miraculously made sequels that expanded and improved on them, then AvsP and ST would become obsolete, just like they did with games like Final Fight and World Warrior.

[Skykid]

Yes, games definitely age as newer ones expand on them. Karate Champ was great and groundbreaking for its time, but as the genre evolved it became obsolete. There's no reason to play it today other than nostalgia when you have stuff like ST, Accent Core, KOF, etc. Same with Xevious or Space Invaders when you have Ketsui, Dragon Blaze, Garegga and others. Then there's the issue of our own age. As we grow we get more experience and develop knowledge and skills, and sometimes what we used to consider great (like me with TMNT arcade) later, with better judgment, becomes evidently poor.

Some games are timeless when they haven't been surpassed by posterior titles and are relevant still today, either because that was the highest point of the genre (or style within a genre) or because the genre itself died shortly afterwards and people moved on. Games like Super Turbo or Alien vs. Predator, for example. But that's relative; if for some reason planets aligned and Capcom miraculously made sequels that expanded and improved on them, then AvsP and ST would become obsolete, just like they did with games like Final Fight and World Warrior.

Yeah, some really good points there. I didn't think about it as genre specific, I kind of saw Blackoak's comment as being related to eras.

I mean, Street Fighter is broken as fuck, so you'd never play it for anything except novelty (and pain). But by the same measure, what if something is old and great? Can Pac Man really age? In my eyes it performs the exact same job as it did on release.

[Mortificator]

The idea that games age is a misunderstanding of not just games, but reality. To age is to be changed by the processes of time, and games simply can't be affected by those processes.

There is indeed aging at work if you replay a game and perceive it differently than before. What's strange is to attribute the aging to the thing for which it's impossible, instead of to the individual for which it's inevitable.

[Never_Scurred]

Games don't age, just our perspective.
A game I enjoyed when I was 11 hasn't changed at all, but as my tastes matured and I began to accumulate many different experiences, I can't appreciate that game at 34 the same way I did back then. I have gotten too used to other types of controls and gameplay mechanics, for starters. Also, my patience for certain types of experiences has diminished greatly. The game hasn't aged at all.

[CIT]

The idea that games age is a misunderstanding of not just games, but reality. To age is to be changed by the processes of time, and games simply can't be affected by those processes.

There is indeed aging at work if you replay a game and perceive it differently than before. What's strange is to attribute the aging to the thing for which it's impossible, instead of to the individual for which it's inevitable.

This is what I meant by "depends on the expectations of the gamer".

Except you said it much more philosophisticatedly.

[Hagane]

Games do age, because they get surpassed by ones that come after them. Just like cars and PC processors get outclassed in terms of performance by newer ones, games also follow a similar process (ideally; now with games trying to become movies things are a bit messy, but that's the way it used to be) with revisions and sequels.

Of course our own aging matters, but if newer games were the same as older ones then that maturing process would not be possible. Saying otherwise would imply that genres are static things that don't evolve (or devolve) at all.

[drauch]

Eh, pretty subjective, but in my eyes a great thing never ages. Big, big difference between "groundbreaking" and actually "good." Games that fall in the "groundbreaking" category are usually surpassed, so yes, I guess those technically age. Anything good stays good. Games can be technically surpassed as far as ease of control and graphics, but I don't think fun ever ages. Hell, look at all the retro-revival crap as of late.

The only thing I see from this thread is Skykid trollbaiting on SFII.

[Skykid]

The only thing I see from this thread is Skykid trollbaiting on SFII.

I was talking about Street Fighter 1 you jackass.

I see Mortificator's points (which is the way I originally thought about it) and Hagane's points. Both work.

Do folks think films and games age differently, or the same. With a game it's a completely hands on experience so you kind of define it yourself. You can tell when its ropey or smooth. In movies the technology and writing is often reflected on the screen. I wonder if passive (film) and active (games) are separate in-terms of the way they age (or don't).

[louisg]

Games with good gameplay and art direction tend not to age much.

[drauch]

Haha, I was hoping so.

A good story never ages. I figured this would be brought up, and like you said, games are an activity, so in a technical sense, yes, they could age as the playability can be improved on, leaving the game with stiff controls in the dust. I don't necessarily think this way myself, but I could at least see it from another's viewpoint. On the other hand, film doesn't age. You watch it; you don't interact. The main driving point is the story. Anyone who relies on the flash and awe rather than substance of the modern film is an ignorant fool. I dunno, I just don't think entertainment ages; it's entirely subjective from that standpoint. You could argue about the technical aspect all day, but if it entertains in modern day, I can't say that it has aged in a negative context.

[Hagane]

A movie can age if it relies on FX, since old FX can look ridiculous and ruin the mood the movie is trying to set (for example, a horror movie with bad FX can make you laugh instead of scaring you), so in that case I believe they can become obsolete. Otherwise they are different from games IMO.

By the way, World Warrior is silly and outdated by now. Hyper Fighting and Super Turbo (and even Champion Edition, which still gets play) have outclassed it.

[TransatlanticFoe]

It's like TV/film. Sure the methods might be outdated but as long as the core story/gameplay was good to begin with, it doesn't matter.

Early Dr. Who or Blake's 7 might have shitty sets and effects, but the stories stand the test of time. And hell, Aliens was made in 1986 and still looks awesome as fuck today (like a lot of outstanding sprite-based games) - so you can even have it both ways!

If you want to pull in the punters with the latest fancy tech and literally that's all you've got (FMV games vs. Avatar?), then the aging process will not be kind. See also early 3D console games with untextured polygons abound and horrendous frame rates, though many are still great fun in spite of this (like Starwing).

Quality gameplay is quality gameplay, whenever the thing was made.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ways for games to age:
1.) Physical aging
2.) Technical obsolescence
3.) The form Hagane talks about - where games become obsolete in comparison to something newer.
4.) The form Kai talks about - where players' old perceptions about games are changed

3.) and 4.) are obviously intertwined, a chicken-and-egg question, but should be easily explained if you think about the psychology. 4.) can obviously happen without 3.) but quite often the state of the art pushes players in new directions, so for us a great action-adventure game might be Dark Souls, whereas in 1993 it might have been Link to the Past, and in 1998 it might have been Resident Evil 2. Obviously, 3.) can provoke 4.) as well, or even just happen by itself - as Hagane mentions, when you find something more fun, all that's changed about a player's perceptions is where their previous #1 pick lies in the ranking of fun.

What's actually happening here? Psychology means that you can be totally engrossed by something now - you are having as much fun as possible, or close to it - because that feeling of enjoyment isn't immediately tied to some kind of rational process about how good or enjoyable something is. It seems paradoxical, but you can have as much fun as possible, and then get exposed to something else - this is the moment where you make a comparison between the two, and all that happens is your appreciation for the first title is reduced.

Weight of history: I talked about this in another thread recently. Some franchises become moribund or too entrenched in previous conventions to allow new growth. This is somewhat related to what Hagane talks about, but think of it as aging in reverse - the effects of nostalgia and other means of ranking older titles, and of looking at a franchise in total, effect pressure in reverse of "aging" on newer games. So Zelda OoT was considered by many "not a real Zelda title" for years. A hopefully less controversial example - is Resident Evil 4 a Resident Evil title? Even if you think it is better than previous Resident Evil titles (by universal acclaim! That's how we roll) there will be a question about whether it "fits" the franchise (i.e., people's expectations). Many good arguments have been made over the years about how expectations about Dracula X SNES were not met. That's the process of aging in reverse.

[Blackbird]

I do think games "age", but some games and genres age much better than others.

I think RPGs and strategy games generally age extremely well. The story or plot of an RPG, one of it's essential components, can be enjoyed no matter what age you're living in so long as it remains a good story. Similarly, strategy games are generally abstractions - the graphics are less important than the mechanics of the game. A strategy game with challenging, enjoyable mechanics will remain just an enjoyable to play years later. Chess being the perfect example - chess is a timeless game because it is just as intellectually stimulating now as when it was first invented.

On the other hand, racing games and other simulation games generally age poorly, in my opinion. A lot of enjoyment from these games is derived from how well they simulate reality. Advancing technology has made clear improvements in our ability to realistically simulate things in games, so I imagine almost anyone would enjoy playing Hawx more than Falcon 4.0.

Another point to consider is the idea of games as an art form. If you look at the graphics of 8 bit games as a form of abstract art, then you can compare them to photorealistic modern games on equal terms. You could say which form of art you like better, but it's a subjective opinion and you are really just comparing apples to oranges.

As an exception to the above argument, I consider the music of games generally ageless. Primitive techonology from earlier games in no way hinders the listener from enjoying the music just as much now, because musical appreciation is entirely subjective. If you like repetitive electronic bleeps, even the oldest video games will sound amazing to you. I will likely still enjoy the music from Gradius and Salamander even when I'm 80 years old, because the music's inspiring sound will not diminish with time - only my opinion can change.

Modern sound technology is almost perfected and unlikely to see significant improvement in audio fidelity, so future games can pretty much all be gauged the same, sound-wise.

[PedroMD]

Although the visual department is where the aging can be most obviously seen, everything else can age. Even stories, that how cliches are made. The stories themselves may remain good or enjoyable for someone who understands the context, but if it needs to be justified with "it was original at the time" to anyone else, that's proof enough that something has aged. This is not a bad thing, because the aging of one work in this case is usually due to an evolution in the entire medium.

Gameplay is a bit more tricky. Tetris has one of the simplest gameplay mechanics of all time, and it will probably remain good forever. Someone who can't enjoy Tetris today, most likely never liked it in the first place and wouldn't have enjoyed it at it's first release date either. Having said that, other games may not be so lucky. The first example I can think of are the Sonic Adventure games. When they came out on the Dreamcast everyone thought they were the best thing ever, but after successive re-releases, everyone slowly realized they were broken messes. I don't like to refer to review scores because they don't mean much, but I feel these metacritc scores for Sonic Adventure 2 are relevant and even funny: 89 on the DC, 73 on the GC, 60 on the X360. It's the same game, the gameplay hasn't changed, but anyone who played it in 2001 and plays it now can attest it's not the same thing. I don't know if it is because these player are now older and more critical, if everyone was just infatuated with the 3D leap and it's a question of context or if games as a medium just moved forward in the same way storytelling does. What I know is that arguing if any of this can be labeled as "aging" is just arguing semantics.


Edit: But then I checked the user's score for the three versions of SA2 and they somehow are pretty consistent, so maybe this example is invalid. I don't know where these people come from. I wrote that based on my opinion, and I've also talked with a lot of people about this on the internet, so I thought my sample space was sufficient. Apparently not.

[Mortificator]

Whatever word you want to use, it's not something that's happening to the game. Space Invaders works exactly the same now as it did 35 years ago; the alien ray guns haven't run out of juice and the shields haven't eroded.

[dan76]

For me games don't age. Chess hasn't aged, Scrabble hasn't aged... neither has sex.

You can still play Karate Champ and enjoy it. What you find enjoyable may change over time, but it still works as a game. It's not nostalgia to play older games on mame - this forum is proof of it.

Pacman is still a valid game today as when it was released, you can play Ms. Pacman, which is generally regarded as "better" or Jr. Pacman, which though superseded the original is worse. Just because technology progresses it certainly doesn't mean it's automatically "better". I don't play Mr.Do! as a form of nostalgia wanking, it's good - I also like Killer7, they're different, but both good (actually Mr.Do! is better).

The thing that certainly does age with games is all the stuff surrounding it, like the packaging, hardware design. All that stuff reeks of nostalgia, which is why mame is such a great thing. All those games standing side by side without any bullshit.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Games don't age - gamers do
It was in a documentary on BBC2
Zelda, Metroid and especially Shaq-Fu
They sucked back then and they suck now too

[Hagane]

You can still play Karate Champ and enjoy it. What you find enjoyable may change over time, but it still works as a game. It's not nostalgia to play older games on mame - this forum is proof of it.

It is nostalgia. Karate Champ now is not as good as when it came out, and you are wasting your time by playing it over much better games that came after it. One can only judge things by comparison, so when you only have one game it automatically is the best ever. But once other games start coming out and advancing the genre, what was great starts to lose value. Karate Champ is not chess. Being old isn't the factor here, quality is.

Now ST, Accent Core, KOF '98 / 2002? Those are still relevant today, and are better than newer releases.

[Skykid]

Now ST, Accent Core, KOF '98 / 2002? Those are still relevant today, and are better than newer releases.

For some reason Chinese people like '97 too. I think it's because of the exploits, but I don't find it as good as I did when it came out, and I used to play that game to death.

So the consensus is:

Some games can age, because they're superseded by superior titles in the same genre.

Some games will never age, because they'll always be incredible.

Video games will always age differently to films, because they're about active engagement.

Damn, not sure we hit on a solid conclusion there.

[Hagane]

I think that's a case of nostalgia too. '98 is basically '97 but improved in every way. Something similar happens with Champion Edition. Hyper Fighting is objectively much better than it, but a lot of people in South America still cling to it because that was the most popular version back then before the Street Fighter craze started to die.

[KennyMan666]

Damn, not sure we hit on a solid conclusion there.

You're expecting a solid consensus about anything at all on shmups forum?

Surely you jest.

[Skykid]

Damn, not sure we hit on a solid conclusion there.

You're expecting a solid consensus about anything at all on shmups forum?

Surely you jest.

Ha ha, wise words indeed!

I think that's a case of nostalgia too. '98 is basically '97 but improved in every way. Something similar happens with Champion Edition. Hyper Fighting is objectively much better than it, but a lot of people in South America still cling to it because that was the most popular version back then before the Street Fighter craze started to die.

Well, let's not do a KOF tangent, but '98 was kind of a big overhaul from '97. I think they play quite differently, or I'd be able to get back into '97 way more easily. '97's got real madness - you can grab super people from a mile away!

[Hagane]

And you can do hilarious OTG combos with Mary, silly infinites with Yamazaki and Terry and a whole lot of dumb stuff. God knows why the Chinese still play it... they do like hacks a lot and '97 plays like official hack, so that might be it

[Skykid]

And you can do hilarious OTG combos with Mary, silly infinites with Yamazaki and Terry and a whole lot of dumb stuff. God knows why the Chinese still play it... they do like hacks a lot and '97 plays like official hack, so that might be it

They love it. I watched an amazing arcade tourney there, and they're godlike at the game. No infinites though, that's some hard stuff to get out mid-match.

What I want to know is why no-one plays ST! Sacrilege!