"iT's AgEd BaDlY" it's aged better than you
15 Comments
It's time to admit aged is a stupid buzzword
Games aging is a very real and well-documented phenomenon. Set aside the disingenuity of taking the statement at its literal meaning, and ponder what is truly meant to be conveyed. Just as there exist games that stand strong against the test of time, there are games that fail woefully. As our standards climb higher and games get... better (in terms of quality of life), it's only natural that some older games erode and wither away in the face of evolution.
Which category does Super Mario 64 fall into? No fucking clue, I only played the DS version and thought it was mid lol
Which category does Super Mario 64 fall into? No fucking clue, I only played the DS version and thought it was mid lol
How can something be well written or fun and then magically suck because it doesn't have raytracing or whatever zoomers are into these days? The term is primarily used as a copout by people who don't want to git gud at retro games and just want immediate satisfaction
Also tbh, in general modern games less so add QOL features and moreso pile on shit like chore mechanics to pad playtime while stripping away important mechanics to make newer entries accessible to the mainstream (this is particularly egregious with fighting game sequels)
While writing is a very convenient facet of a game to use to disprove the existence of game aging, it is, of course, far from the only factor that makes up a game. What I really had in mind was gameplay.
Take Shin Megami Tensei I, for example. I probably would have been able to enjoy it if it was the first JRPG I'd ever played. Why? Because I wouldn't be familiar with anything better, and I wouldn't have any expectations. I would be able to accept the outrageous encounter rate at face value. I wouldnt have minded the fact that every battle can be auto battled. It would not have felt boring and repetitive to me because EVERYTHING the game had to offer would be completely new to me. Now try playing SMT1 after playing SMTIII or IV or even just Strange Journey. Aside from the music and the story, everything SMT1 has done has been done objectively better in other games, to such a level that SMT1 feels RELATIVELY primitive.
While it hits JRPGs harder than most other genres, the same can theoretically happen to any game that has been powercrept so hard as far as gameplay is concerned. Even something as simple as a better camera can make one game feel dated compared to the next game in a series. Why do you think people advise you to play games in a series in release order?
Take Shin Megami Tensei I, for example. I probably would have been able to enjoy it if it was the first JRPG I'd ever played. Why? Because I wouldn't be familiar with anything better, and I wouldn't have any expectations. I would be able to accept the outrageous encounter rate at face value. I wouldnt have minded the fact that every battle can be auto battled. It would not have felt boring and repetitive to me because EVERYTHING the game had to offer would be completely new to me. Now try playing SMT1 after playing SMTIII or IV or even just Strange Journey. Aside from the music and the story, everything SMT1 has done has been done objectively better in other games, to such a level that SMT1 feels RELATIVELY primitive.
While it hits JRPGs harder than most other genres, the same can theoretically happen to any game that has been powercrept so hard as far as gameplay is concerned. Even something as simple as a better camera can make one game feel dated compared to the next game in a series. Why do you think people advise you to play games in a series in release order?
And I'm not saying newer games are just automatically better than older games either. Theoretically games should just be getting better and better, but as you said, some developers opt to pile on dogshit and move backwards or completely omit any innovation. Just look at the absolute state of the western AAA industry, or the "quirky earthbound/yume nikki-inspired rpg maker game about emotions" trend in indie games.
It doesn't magically suck, the general standarts of quality move on and a game gets reevaluated.
And the thing is, those standarts don't move linearily.
In the 90s - early 00s a good game was a game with lots of stuff in it.
In late 00s - early 10s a good game was one that flows, doesn't obstruct your progress and looks good and cutting-edge.
And now we seem to be all about core mechanics.
We were all teens at some point, we all were trying to undestand why we like what we like, we all were to some extent folded into the zeitgeist or were rebelling against such. So discussing how something has aged is perfectly valid as general understanding of gamedesign changes.
And the thing is, those standarts don't move linearily.
In the 90s - early 00s a good game was a game with lots of stuff in it.
In late 00s - early 10s a good game was one that flows, doesn't obstruct your progress and looks good and cutting-edge.
And now we seem to be all about core mechanics.
We were all teens at some point, we all were trying to undestand why we like what we like, we all were to some extent folded into the zeitgeist or were rebelling against such. So discussing how something has aged is perfectly valid as general understanding of gamedesign changes.
The problems listed with SMT1, even at the time they were issues. Games like DQ3 actually had lower encounter rates than it which casts doubt on this being a matter of technology rather than Atlus being inexperienced working with said technology. And while it's true a few early RPGs have a problem with status ailments being too useful (take for example Wizardry 1 where the instakill works even on the final boss, albeit I'm fine with it there since you have to work very hard for even a single cast of it and Werdna is the only boss fight in the game) I feel like this is better than the alternative of status ailments in JRPGs being 100% useless which became a huge problem with the genre over time. In Nocturne for example, there is basically never any reason to use status ailments beyond repetitive buffs and debuff cycles because every single boss has total immunity to every effect under the sun. SMT2 actually hit a sweet spot with early bosses being susceptible to harsh effects like instadeath and gradually emphasizing buffs/debuffs coupled with slight chances to briefly stun later bosses, but that's starting to get beside the point.
It's true experiencing one piece of media can make another seem less impressive, but to say it's solely a matter of one being newer is something I can't follow. I always adored the practical effects in the Showa and Heisei Godzilla movies because everything was a tangible prop on the set; scenes like the pagoda smash had a real weight to them. On the other hand, newer Hollywood Godzilla films ironically feel more cartoony to me with their uncanny CGI, there's nothing that feels as real as a suit actor from the classics. Likewise, going back to Guilty Gear XX Accent Core+R from Xrd made the latter look much less impressive to me since AC+R had a notably bigger cast even barring EX characters, EX attacks, slashbacks, crazier movesets for characters like Slayer with his sick teleport, and so forth. Sometimes an entry in a series will be an improved sequel, sometimes it will be a stepback, but it's all case-by-case rather than a clearcut example of technology making an earlier entry age poorly. I'll be the first to admit Fire Emblem 3 makes 1 feel redundant to me for instance.
I really can't agree with RPGs being hit hard by a trend of early entries feeling barebones compared to later ones either. Several retro RPG series' have that issue of hitting their peak early with Parasite Eve, Chrono Trigger, Grandia, arguably ones like Lunar too being cited as entries where the first game was the high point. It's not even just contained to JRPGs since the Fallout fandom constantly goes on about how Bethesda ruined the franchise. And looking at RPG remakes using more advanced technology, sure there are some standout remakes like Dragon Quest 3, but generally they always whenever a 4th-5th gen JRPG gets remade they seem to be a step down. Lufia remakes killing the series with their blander aesthetic and puzzles, Persona 2 IS on PSP reducing the difficulty for what was already a really easy game, FF5-6 remakes have horrible pixel art and scattered typos, Sega AGES Phantasy Star being forgotten as it tried to go against the minimalist setting that made PS1 great, and don't even get me started on all the Mana remakes or Demon's Souls.
And for what it's worth, I actually still enjoyed SMT1 even after playing entries like Nocturne before it. I love the atmosphere and it's an interesting history lesson of a game, if nothing else.
It's true experiencing one piece of media can make another seem less impressive, but to say it's solely a matter of one being newer is something I can't follow. I always adored the practical effects in the Showa and Heisei Godzilla movies because everything was a tangible prop on the set; scenes like the pagoda smash had a real weight to them. On the other hand, newer Hollywood Godzilla films ironically feel more cartoony to me with their uncanny CGI, there's nothing that feels as real as a suit actor from the classics. Likewise, going back to Guilty Gear XX Accent Core+R from Xrd made the latter look much less impressive to me since AC+R had a notably bigger cast even barring EX characters, EX attacks, slashbacks, crazier movesets for characters like Slayer with his sick teleport, and so forth. Sometimes an entry in a series will be an improved sequel, sometimes it will be a stepback, but it's all case-by-case rather than a clearcut example of technology making an earlier entry age poorly. I'll be the first to admit Fire Emblem 3 makes 1 feel redundant to me for instance.
I really can't agree with RPGs being hit hard by a trend of early entries feeling barebones compared to later ones either. Several retro RPG series' have that issue of hitting their peak early with Parasite Eve, Chrono Trigger, Grandia, arguably ones like Lunar too being cited as entries where the first game was the high point. It's not even just contained to JRPGs since the Fallout fandom constantly goes on about how Bethesda ruined the franchise. And looking at RPG remakes using more advanced technology, sure there are some standout remakes like Dragon Quest 3, but generally they always whenever a 4th-5th gen JRPG gets remade they seem to be a step down. Lufia remakes killing the series with their blander aesthetic and puzzles, Persona 2 IS on PSP reducing the difficulty for what was already a really easy game, FF5-6 remakes have horrible pixel art and scattered typos, Sega AGES Phantasy Star being forgotten as it tried to go against the minimalist setting that made PS1 great, and don't even get me started on all the Mana remakes or Demon's Souls.
And for what it's worth, I actually still enjoyed SMT1 even after playing entries like Nocturne before it. I love the atmosphere and it's an interesting history lesson of a game, if nothing else.
"And I'm not saying newer games are just automatically better than older games either. Theoretically games should just be getting better and better, but as you said, some developers opt to pile on dogshit and move backwards or completely omit any innovation. Just look at the absolute state of the western AAA industry, or the "quirky earthbound/yume nikki-inspired rpg maker game about emotions" trend in indie games."
I'm glad we can agree there
@unaderon I get what you're saying, but the thing is I feel like media should be judged on its own merits rather than looking at a checklist of whether it needs to be doing the same thing the popular things of today are doing. There are some things that embrace their technology that could be considered great experiences at the time (and still be considered) because they have a pleasing artstyle while still running in a stable framerate without loads of bugs for examples, and ones that did not work well with their technology such as games that constantly crash and dip to sub-20 FPS because they were trying to push super high graphical fidelity. The latter will always be more popular for the mass appeal of photorealism alone but that doesn't detract from the former.
I'm glad we can agree there
@unaderon I get what you're saying, but the thing is I feel like media should be judged on its own merits rather than looking at a checklist of whether it needs to be doing the same thing the popular things of today are doing. There are some things that embrace their technology that could be considered great experiences at the time (and still be considered) because they have a pleasing artstyle while still running in a stable framerate without loads of bugs for examples, and ones that did not work well with their technology such as games that constantly crash and dip to sub-20 FPS because they were trying to push super high graphical fidelity. The latter will always be more popular for the mass appeal of photorealism alone but that doesn't detract from the former.
gaming is subjective and i dont really subscribe to games 'aging badly' but there are definitely tons of examples of just bad game design on the basis of cheapness or extending out playtime
With you 100% Jax
Just played a Saint Seiya game where enemies spawn on you the instant you teleport sometimes. Pain
Just played a Saint Seiya game where enemies spawn on you the instant you teleport sometimes. Pain
PKMudkipz, i think the usage of the term "aging" in video game discourse in somewhat unreflected and the matter is considerably more complicated than this
I don't think you can describe the phenomenon of "aging" as an "well documented phenomenon", because "aging" is not an empirically designable state of things, therefore there is nothing you can document. What you can indeed observe is the cultural perception of how an given object is affected by the, also not empirical, passage of time. But we can't confuse our perception of the object with the object itself, and in this case, what matters, an form of aesthetical judgement on the object (that we call vaguely "quality") and not even the object in its empirical existence. You couldn't possibly observe, describe and document in empirical terms the "quality" of a game, just how this game quality is perceived in an social context. But just because a lot of people think something have aged, this doesn't mean anything about the quality of the game itself.
I could also stance that i don't know if understand quality as an linear progression is an accurate way of understanding quality, it seems way more complex, and not a thing you could reduce to quantifiable progressions or any spatial metaphor at all. The own idea of "evolution", in this term, seems a little bit naive (no offense intended)
There's a valid point on discussion how we, collectivelly valued certain things more than others towards the history of media, but we must not hypostatize this general cultural perception of the game as something that is a part of the game itself.
I don't think i could also agree with you on the issue that you have "objective" increases in mechanics from each game to another. In the first place, because a game is a relative totality, and its elements only make sense when refered to the game as a whole. Sometimes an mechanics that work really well for a certain game, might not work for other game, even in the same genre. We can't simply isolate an element without understanding this isolation is an abstraction and take this into account. The other question, is that i don't think you could claim that something about an videogame, as an art form, can be evaluated as objective entities (neither as subjective ones). There is an objectivity in each piece of art, such as an painture is, when we try to reduce it to its objective elements, still paint in an canvas, but art is more than objectivity, while not being merely subjective feelings towards objects, but something that is neither merely object, nor mere subjective projection onto an object.
I think we should understand the question of "aging" as two possible events
1. Sometimes, as the guy with the megaman pfp said, is the case where an design flaw is present since the time when the game released. Dragon Quest I did not aged poorly, there were problems that were problems since 1986, like the power creeps, unbalanced progression curve and the awful decision of putting the green dragon in the tunnel for instance. If people in 1986 were unable to point all these flaws, doesn't mean they appeared with the sole movement of time, they were a part of the language of the game and the way it structures itself, and if you could go back to 1986 and explain why these elements were bad, it would still make sense and be rationable points about the game (even if some people didn't agree, but this is a fundamental part of reasoning)
2.In other cases, it doesn't constitute any reasonable statement about the game and its "quality", but rather is an statement about an language barrier. In a certain time, the games are constructed by certain comprehensions that people have of its signs (is not mere convention because is not something people explicitely built. When you see an red barrier an automatically think it explodes, is not an convention, also not an objectivity, but an sign, that you understand, there's a meaning being communicated there, and you sucessefully understood its meaning). The language of videogames is not the same that it was in the 80s for instance, and therefore we may often enter in situations where we can't understand certain signs, and untill we have a better understatement of said language we'll struggle with it. That is why people often think NES Dragon Quest or the OG Zelda game games are too cryptic when these games have an extensive tip system in the game, from both the way the overworld is designed to character dialogue that most people nowadays simply don't understand because the way information is delivered in contemporary games is completely different.
all of that being said, i think we may not discard altogether the word "aged" but we should take an more critical stance towards it and also that JRPG is actually quite the opposite being one of the genres that changed the least, losing only for 2d plattformers and visual novels/adventure games i guess
I don't think you can describe the phenomenon of "aging" as an "well documented phenomenon", because "aging" is not an empirically designable state of things, therefore there is nothing you can document. What you can indeed observe is the cultural perception of how an given object is affected by the, also not empirical, passage of time. But we can't confuse our perception of the object with the object itself, and in this case, what matters, an form of aesthetical judgement on the object (that we call vaguely "quality") and not even the object in its empirical existence. You couldn't possibly observe, describe and document in empirical terms the "quality" of a game, just how this game quality is perceived in an social context. But just because a lot of people think something have aged, this doesn't mean anything about the quality of the game itself.
I could also stance that i don't know if understand quality as an linear progression is an accurate way of understanding quality, it seems way more complex, and not a thing you could reduce to quantifiable progressions or any spatial metaphor at all. The own idea of "evolution", in this term, seems a little bit naive (no offense intended)
There's a valid point on discussion how we, collectivelly valued certain things more than others towards the history of media, but we must not hypostatize this general cultural perception of the game as something that is a part of the game itself.
I don't think i could also agree with you on the issue that you have "objective" increases in mechanics from each game to another. In the first place, because a game is a relative totality, and its elements only make sense when refered to the game as a whole. Sometimes an mechanics that work really well for a certain game, might not work for other game, even in the same genre. We can't simply isolate an element without understanding this isolation is an abstraction and take this into account. The other question, is that i don't think you could claim that something about an videogame, as an art form, can be evaluated as objective entities (neither as subjective ones). There is an objectivity in each piece of art, such as an painture is, when we try to reduce it to its objective elements, still paint in an canvas, but art is more than objectivity, while not being merely subjective feelings towards objects, but something that is neither merely object, nor mere subjective projection onto an object.
I think we should understand the question of "aging" as two possible events
1. Sometimes, as the guy with the megaman pfp said, is the case where an design flaw is present since the time when the game released. Dragon Quest I did not aged poorly, there were problems that were problems since 1986, like the power creeps, unbalanced progression curve and the awful decision of putting the green dragon in the tunnel for instance. If people in 1986 were unable to point all these flaws, doesn't mean they appeared with the sole movement of time, they were a part of the language of the game and the way it structures itself, and if you could go back to 1986 and explain why these elements were bad, it would still make sense and be rationable points about the game (even if some people didn't agree, but this is a fundamental part of reasoning)
2.In other cases, it doesn't constitute any reasonable statement about the game and its "quality", but rather is an statement about an language barrier. In a certain time, the games are constructed by certain comprehensions that people have of its signs (is not mere convention because is not something people explicitely built. When you see an red barrier an automatically think it explodes, is not an convention, also not an objectivity, but an sign, that you understand, there's a meaning being communicated there, and you sucessefully understood its meaning). The language of videogames is not the same that it was in the 80s for instance, and therefore we may often enter in situations where we can't understand certain signs, and untill we have a better understatement of said language we'll struggle with it. That is why people often think NES Dragon Quest or the OG Zelda game games are too cryptic when these games have an extensive tip system in the game, from both the way the overworld is designed to character dialogue that most people nowadays simply don't understand because the way information is delivered in contemporary games is completely different.
all of that being said, i think we may not discard altogether the word "aged" but we should take an more critical stance towards it and also that JRPG is actually quite the opposite being one of the genres that changed the least, losing only for 2d plattformers and visual novels/adventure games i guess
I don't think that's true :)
FallenGrace
2 years ago