Recusant said:
The trouble isn't in admitting it, the trouble is in that no one seems able to specify what "things" have actually improved. Let's see if you can give me some details.
Again, not so much. There is a lot of stuff you can see that is easily agreed upon as having improved from previously. Yes, there will always be some who like the previous as well. Much like with people aging there are many who see wrinkles and such early as 'poorly' aging, while others have no problem at all with it. Even outside of that, one of the biggest things that is always said to have aged poorly; Realistic graphics. 'Realistic' graphics always look pretty poor compared to their 'realistic' counterparts a year or two later. Why? Technology moved forward, and the things that we tried to do and failed at to make it look realistic, can now be successfully, or even better, performed. Resolution of images has also grown quite a lot for more stylised games, and not being able to see the pixels in everything that isn't trying to be an 8bit emulator is a drastic improvement.
Hold on, now! We need to specify the time periods we're talking about. Games of 2016 may give us far more customizability than games of, say, 1983, but we've actually lost a fair bit compared to 1999. A four-button controller gives you far fewer options than a 98-button keyboard, and with more and more games being made for systems with the former and only reluctantly ported over to the latter, customiziability saw a notable decrease, which it's still recovering from. Remember Dead Space 3? You do have a point, though; over the last four decades, the trend has definitely been toward more customization and options, and that's definitely an improvement.
Its not even just customisation though.
WASD to move, shift to sprint, r to reload, mouse aiming, hotkeys in RTS and MMOs... These things all didn't exist at one point. It was obtuse and difficult to play many games, because all the quality of life controls we're used to these days, with usable interfaces and such. Now, we have standardised controls - without even reading a manual or knowing who developed the game, looking at the internet, playing a tutorial or anything else, we can pick up most games and have a complete understanding of their control systems. Because they've been standardised. We can do things like right click to auto-equip something in an RPG, or press a hotkey to select an army we've designated in an RTS.
Yes, customisation is one potential improvement, but not all interface improvements are in terms of customisation.
Additionally, the time period is kind of irrelevant. It isn't "All games from 1999 have aged well" and "All games since then have aged poorly". It depends on the game, and how things are utilised within that game, and what the needs of that game are. Maybe customisation in a game is worse than in other games, but its interface has the most functional layout, and its control scheme is well thought out and laid out, intuitive to use and without any real problems. Its interface may age well overall, despite having one element not be perfect.
Compare to a game like, oh, I don't know, Skyrim [For PC here]. An interface designed not to be functional, and that often hindered play or made it a chore. Imagine it also decided to enforce tfgh as its movement keys, had space to sprint, ctrl to jump, and a bunch of other strange things the devs thought were fine, but just made it... Not great to use these days. Oh, but you could customise some of them. That wouldn't age well. In fact, at release, we'd probably call it a poorly designed interface - which we did. The difference is, go back 15-20 [Actually, looking back, maybe even longer - I'm feeling old now, I remember when saying that would have meant the early 90s at the latest] years, that sort of interface would have been pretty acceptable, if not actually pretty fantastic. Interfaces as a whole often weren't all that well designed, and Skyrim's is far from the worst in history.
And that's what often makes the difference between 'aged poorly', and 'aged well'. If a game showed up with those systems today, what would the reaction be? Skyrim's interface was received poorly because in this day and age we've come to expect much better. Same with Mass Effect 1's looting interface. Back in the day though, such interfaces would have been fine. Nothing too out of the ordinary. If created in the past, they wouldn't be 'bad' interfaces, they would have just been an interface, among the sea of others that were being tried out. These days? We've decided which of those various interfaces works best, and look at ones like Skyrim and say 'yeah, that's a pretty poor interface'.
Sure, its not unanimous, and some just don't mind at all - nothing ever is though. Everyone has an opinion on everything. Same as ageing well or ageing poorly with people, you'll never get everyone to agree on what is what.
That's not going to cut it. If you're arguing for objective improvement, you need to give specific, concrete examples. I'm struggling to think of even a single example of something being "streamlined" without it detracting from the game. Sometimes that's worth it, often it's not, but it always takes away. Tell me what doesn't.
Do not I said it half ties in with interface, as a lot of the times the interface, and how it interacts with gameplay, is the reason for a mechanic being non-streamlined. Examples like this are where the line between what is interface and what is gameplay get blurry. For example; a loot all button, for looting every corpse around you after a battle. Is that a gameplay change? Well, yeah. It kind of is. Is it an interface change? Kind of a little. It doesn't actually change what you do, or how you do it, it simply removes a large amount of repetion and time - if you want it to.
This isn't the same for every streamlined mechanic, or 'streamlined' mechanic. Don't get me wrong and think I'm saying that. But for the criteria I posited - the place where interface and gameplay mix - its usually the way things turn out. Hence why I took it as one half of gameplay improvements.
You're also going to need to be objective. "They're just not enjoyable to play" doesn't mean a damn thing once we move beyond your opinion. Further, I'm a little confused as to why a game that "just wasn't well made" would any measure of popularity, let alone an enduring fan base. Do you think the world had nothing else to do in 1990?
Neither does 'aged well' or 'aged poorly' though, even in relation to people. Has George Clooney aged well? I could find you some who would say yes, and some who would say no. EVERYTHING is an opinion. You're trying to apply some unrealistic standard of complete objectivity in this case to deny something you understand, while pretending it exists in another so that you're able to justify some need for it here.
As for "Just not that well made" - because we're judging it by today's standards. Skyrim's interface is poorly made. As is its combat. Shove them back 30 years, they're fucking miraculous. Games from the past that, today we recognise as poorly made due to a better understanding of games from 30 years of studying them, and from new ideas spawned from the truly great games that influence generations of games, have gained fanbases and great success in their day. Some of the most influential games and franchises today, have games early on that weren't really that great - by today's standards - but at the time were something brilliant. It is difficult to single out a game purely on gameplay for this, as when looking at many games many things can be said to have improved. Common suggestions range through Tomb Raider [Original original], Pokemon R+B, the first Sims with no expansions, Half Life... There are a ton.
One close modern example could be said to be Dragon Age Inquisition. It was, when it came out, a pretty mediocre game, at best. However, it managed to pull off a character and linear story driven open world RPG off better than any game before it had managed to, and for that was largely loved and reasonably popular, despite its average gameplay, poor controls and poor quest design.
Then Witcher 3 came out. DA:I's achievements were instantly left by the wayside, because Witcher 3 managed to do that - and better - while having good quest design, pretty passable controls, and workable combat and such as well.
Its not really thought of it especially now, because DA:I was released so close to Witcher 3, however when it came out it was seen as, while not a perfect game, still a pretty decent one. Now, all its flaws are the main things that stand out, because all of its achievements are overshadowed by a newer game.
And this is often the case with games that age poorly. They will have their faults, for sure, but they'll do something great in that genre, that is an achievement for the time. Then, other games replicate that achievement, without the faults, and the game that was once good because of its achievements, now isn't because those achievements are now the norm, and it didn't hold up in other areas.
Ageing well often happens slightly the other way around. A game comes out really well made and well designed, and do something great within that genre. Future games copy that something great, but don't do it as well as the original, and often their other mechanics aren't up to fluff. While the original gets older, and is no longer fresh, its often still one of the best examples of that sort of game.
This naturally isn't a hard and fast rule, but generally its what can lead to a game ageing poorly or well in my experience.
No. I understand what the phrase means, but not what it's referring to, that's why I asked. So far all you've given me is that "it's old", which means we know it worked; and "we do things differently now" which just means "we do things differently now". The levels in the original Deus Ex were huge and sprawling; three or four of them could probably contain the entirety of Human Revolution. This is a direct consequence of high-res textures taking up an enormous amount of space. Mankind Divided may prove different; it also takes up 5.3 times as much hard drive space as its predecessor, and sixty-five times as much as the original. If this means that the levels are decently sized again, will the tiny levels of Human Revolution have "aged poorly" and the larger-if-uglier ones of the first game have retroactively changed to "aged well" again?
Well, yeah. You're missing the part with "And what we do now is better than what we did then". Not always the case, and can differ from person to person, but it generally makes something have aged poorly if true.
What the referring to is the difference in how a game is seen now, vs how it was seen then. Note I'm not saying who its seen by. It could be in the eyes of an individual, in the eyes of a group, in the eyes of its technical achievements.
With the Deus Ex example, I think you're looking far too closely at one very specific thing, and missing the forest for the trees with it.
How does it serve the game?
The new Deus Ex hasn't aged well or poorly yet I wouldn't think, but its levels size tend to suit the game. I don't think most people go in there and go "My god this game is so great because it has small levels", or "This game sucks because of small levels" [Though for the latter I'm sure there are a few]. Likewise I don't think people would look at the original and say "My god this game is great because of large levels" [I'm sure there would be a few] or "My god this game would be so much better with small levels".
The size of the levels is only one aspect of what makes the game enjoyable, and is meaningless without context of the rest of the game. Maybe the new Deus Ex would suck with huge sprawling levels, because the rest of the mechanics weren't designed with them in mind. Maybe the old Deus Ex would suck with small levels, because it was designed for larger ones and the mechanics just aren't as appealing in so limited a space.
Specific design choices on their own don't determine ageing poorly or ageing well. How they're used, what in the service of, and how enjoyable they make that particular game determine such things. More appropriately you could look at small levels of games from the early 90s that were basically just a couple of square rooms with plain concrete textures on them, and say they've aged poorly compared to modern small levels that have curved where appropriate, far more detailed textures, and a bunch of detailed environmental objects around as well. It'd be an opinion, but at least you're comparing enjoyment or reception of something, rather than just whether a game has big or small levels.
This is subjective, personal taste- albeit, admittedly, of a large group of people- being treated as fact. It is not "this is no longer enjoyable", it's "I no longer enjoy this". And while it's fine to have a preference- even one that differs from mine- a preference is an opinion, and an opinion is not a fact. The game is not less enjoyable. It's just something you enjoy less.
Again, welcome to everything in life. Nothing is good or evil, that's an opinion. Nothing is right or wrong. No person has aged poorly or aged well. No one is beautiful, no one is ugly. Everything about everyone is just an opinion, but you don't seem to have the same qualms about all this. When someone says... God, who is it these days? Mia Khalifa or something? God fucking knows. Anyway. When someone says she's hot, you don't go "Yeah, just your opinion. What is hot? I understand the phrase, but not what its referring to. Its so subjective, you're treating it as a fact". Its understood that its an opinion. Same in the sense of ageing well and ageing poorly. That said, similar to people being hot or not, there is often a general consensus, and an understanding coming from a more neutral place - such as the design of games rather than the enjoyment of them by an individual - that give a quasi-objective opinion on such things. Mass Effect's inventory and looting interface being bad, for example. Not a fact. Its an opinion. I might love it. That said, from a more neutral place, we can analyse how its not an efficient design, and how it doesn't really achieve its goals. We can also look to the majority who thought it wasn't that great, and say that in a quasi-objective sense, it was bad. Its audience did not like it. It had flaws in it that stopped it from achieving its goals to its full potential. Individuals might like it or call it good, but its understood why people call it bad. Its an opinion, but its one that follows on from a cause.
The same is true of games that age well and poorly. One of the easiest ways to see, is how the game's target audience were it released today would react to it [Though you've got to be specific with the target audience. "FPS fans" isn't an audience, there are a lot of types of FPS games]. Games like Golden Eye would be hated for their really bad controls, but back in the day it was loved for the things it did differently from all the other FPS. Some might still enjoy it, but the majority wouldn't find it that impressive. Likewise, of those who played it, many may still find it fun, either due to nostalgia, or due to being more familiar with things like its controls, and thus not bothered by them, from having played it years ago, while many probably see all its flaws and don't think it is as good these days as it was back then.
If a game's target audience, by and large, wouldn't enjoy the same thing released today, its generally considered fair to say its aged poorly. Its a personal opinion, yes, and some of its audience won't agree, but they're able to say they don't agree, and they're fully entitled to hold that opinion and it be recognised.
Its like calling something beautiful, or hot, or anything of the like. When we call supermodels attractive, its by a majority standard of who they're trying to appeal to. We don't assume that it means every single person on the planet finds them attractive. We do treat it as a quasi-fact though, because by and large, its accepted, and we know qualities that tend to be attractive, and we can point to them on someone. Aged well and aged poorly, much like when talking about people with those phrases, matches this. It isn't a 100% objective statement everyone must agree on. Its simultaneously a personal opinion, and a reference to some kind of majority opinion. You can say it as a quasi-objective measure of how well that game would be received, and you can say it as your own personal opinion. Neither is more valid, neither is the only opinion, much like with any opinion someone can have about something. If we say something is a good movie we can either mean we personally enjoyed it, or a majority of its audience enjoyed it, or on a more technical level the way it was made and edited and acted was good, even if we didn't personally enjoy it that much. None of them is more valid than the other, and generally one can understand which is being used based on the context of the situation and conversation. And if not, questioning which is being used usually reveals it.
Opinions - such as likes, dislikes, ageing well, ageing poorly, beauty, ugliness - can be referred to either as an individual opinion or a group average opinion, and we tend to understand when its being used as each. What confuses me is why this can be understood for other opinions, but not ageing well or poorly specifically in the context of games only. And of course, with many opinions, there is some level of objective fact that explains a predominance of one view or another, or can be used to back up one opinion or another, but that doesn't invalidate a different opinion thanks to the fact that you're talking about an opinion.
