Do games degrade in quality over time?

C14N

In the The Last of Us thread a few days ago, amongst discussion of whether or not it would be the Citizen Kane of video games, a separate thread started unraveling about whether or not games that were good once can still be considered good. It started veering off the original topic so a mod stepped in and suggested someone make another thread about it, which is what I'm doing now because I thought it could be interesting

Specifically the statement that I think kicked it off was

noodler wrote: »

I think it is absolutely pointless in the extreme to criticize a video game now because it might not hold up in 15-20 years time.

Different rules simply must apply.

If something was awesome for 50 hours when you first played it but not so 20 years later then I really do not think people should look back at it (Goldeneye example if you wish) and feel that they were somehow misguided or blinded to its flaws.

Videogames in the main (in the main) simply can't hold up as well as films over time and different standards need to apply.

So regarding that, do people think it's true that videogames just can't be expected to hold up over time or do they think something fun to play 15 years ago should still be fun to play now?


Personally, it makes me feel guilty but I think they don't hold up very well. I have a hard time going back to N64/PS1 era games because the graphics are so off-putting. Even my Gamecube games don't get played because SD just doesn't look nice anymore. Usually, 16-bit games are fine for some reason though. I tend to feel this way about films too though (depending on the film). For stuff that used old special effects, I always end up with the thought of "oh but this probably looked really advanced back in 1982" or whatever but knowing that if it came out today, it would be slated for it's effects.

I don't think this will happen as much in the future though. I feel that the technical achievements will become smaller and smaller over time as games cross the uncanny valley. I feel like films have kind of reached this standstill for the last decade or so where they just aren't aging like they used to and it seems like, for the last few years, there's really nothing they can't do.

So what do other people think?

Retr0gamer

The only thing off putting about old N64 and PS1 games is that many of them have bad framerates. Bad framerates lead to laggy controls which makes many of the games near unplayable. At the time good graphcis let us ignore those faults but now you can see that they just weren't good games in the first place. For example Mario 64 is still one of the greatest games on the N64 but probably has some of the most primitive graphics on the system but it keeps a constant framerate of 60pfs. Stuff like Conker's Bad Fur Day and Goldeneye have aged very poorly because they have such poor framerates from pushing the system too far that they are near unplayable now.

Gameplay doesn't age and while graphics can age, particularly early 3D, dismissing a game because of poor graphics is like dismissing a film because it's black and white. If you sat all games age badly you are just wrong.

As for SD not looking nice anymore it's due to the cables you are using. You mention the Gamecube which can produce gorgeous visuals but if you are using composite cables (red, yellow and white) instead of RGB scart it's going to look disgraceful because of poor cable quality.

Zero-Cool

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

Like I said in TLOU thread, Final Fantasy VII was realeased 16 years ago and is still brilliant to play. Obviously, most 'classics' are shyte to play today but a few like FF VII do exist.

TomCo

Agh!

I clicked the wrong option in the poll somehow.
Undo, Undo, UNDO!

super_furry

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

Some do, some don't. Those more heavily reliant on emerging technology and techniques don't age well, while those based on proven and stable engines/game design do. Early 3D games like Race Drivin', Stun Runner and even Goldeneye are unplayable now, but 2D games like Mario World, Castlevania SOTN and Super Metroid are every bit as good now as they were at release.

ShadowHearth

A lot of love to old games is based on nostalgia. yeah, there are some games that aged well, but that does not mean that the game, which did not ages well is a bad game.
Fallout 2 is still my number 1 game of all times. Did it aged well? FECK NO! 256 colours and 640x480 resolution. Yup, there are mods which make it look better and bring it back to playable and enjoyable condition. ( I guess one of the PC perks )

Mr Bloat

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

I feel that gamers are more keen for nostalgia than almost any other group - we constantly yearn to recreate the excitement and feelings that we experienced in the past. It is very difficult to go back and recreate this though. Case in point: I adored the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape: Torment. I have tried many times to go back and play them again but, because I don't get that "wow" effect that I had when I was younger, I drop them after a while. Then, a while later, I try again. This particularly happens when I am anticipating a new game which, when bought, doesn't live up to the hype or my expectations. I reinstalled five or six games old games after being let down by Diablo 3!

It's difficult to go back and try to recreate the experience you had when you played a certain game for the first time but that isn't to say that older games don't hold up against the test of time. My daughter recently played through Zelda: Link to the Past for the first time and adored it. In twenty years time, someone whom hasn't played The Last of Us may play it and love it but someone who plays it today and tries to replay it in 20 years may not feel the same way.

Unearthly

Most games do decline.I used to think FIFA 98 was amazing in 1997/1998 and now its car crash stuff.

Although Playing old Ps1 classics on handhelds helps instead of 50 inch plus tv's

Sarky

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

Pac-man is still f*cking amazing. QED.

COYVB

Games don't degrade in quality, the other titles they're held up against, however, increase dramatically in quality as time goes by. It's something that doesn't really apply to movies, given how reliant games obviously are when it comes to technology. Most old classics, incredible as they were at the time, are poor when compared to even bad modern games. That's absolutely nothing against the games or their developers, but more the technical limitations placed upon them. Obviously there are more than a handful of notable exceptions - there are old games that are still incredibly playable - but for the most part, as technology passes them by, games simply become antiquated to the point of being borderline unplayable, despite their historical importance. Goldeneye, for example, is an awful, awful game by modern standards. At the time, it was among the first of its kind on consoles to do many of the things it did, and because of that, it was a watershed moment in gaming. Compared to even the worst modern FPS title, however, it's awful.

The games that tend not to age are the ones that are the pinnacle of their genre, usually genres that have long been bypassed. Whether that's the old 2D side-scrolling platformers, or top down RPGs, gaming has moved on without them ever being surpassed in their niche. The likes of Link to the Past, Sonic 2 or Super Mario World will likely always be thoroughly enjoyable games because, aside from the occasional title here and there, they're the kinds of games that just aren't made any more. They weren't held back by technical limitations, instead they embraced the technology that was available at the time, and ran with it. They didn't try anything fancy, technically, and just focused on being what they were. Modern games don't really have that. If FPS titles fall out of fashion at some point, the ones that'll feel the freshest for the longest will be the ones that were released right at the end of the genre's boom in popularity

penev10

Most genres have evolved leaving older games lacking the refinements that would be prerequisites in modern games of that genre but great design is still appreciable even though it may have been bettered by incremental improvements.

Games which rely on a 3D environment, a polygonal one, need clear textures, good draw distance and other such performance-related qualities and they suffer badly the further back you go.

I find playing many PS1 era games pointless now whereas back int' day I would gladly drive around a track when I couldn't see more than 10ft ahead of the car or shoot at a spec in the distance in a FPS. These technical issues are hard to overlook now.

Graphics in general are a subjective issue but if someone finds older graphics ruins the immersive qualities of a game then they aren't going to appreciate the game to the fullest.

ShadowHearth

penev10 wrote: »

Most genres have evolved leaving older games lacking the refinements that would be prerequisites in modern games of that genre but great design is still appreciable even though it may have been bettered by incremental improvements.

Games which rely on a 3D environment, a polygonal one, need clear textures, good draw distance and other such performance-related qualities and they suffer badly the further back you go.

I find playing many PS1 era games pointless now whereas back int' day I would gladly drive around a track when I couldn't see more than 10ft ahead of the car or shoot at a spec in the distance in a FPS. These technical issues are hard to overlook now.

I got destruction derby 2 in carboot sale for 3eu. I was so excited to play it. I surely could not remember that horrible draw distance!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX3Ji-4x0UY

Banjo

There's no point looking at old games and asking if they stand up today. We don't do the same thing with Movies, books, plays, music, cars... No one looks at a ford model T and says "My Opel Astra kicks it's arse!" or talks about how the production on the new Justin Bieber album knocks anything Cream ever did out of the park. Todd MacFarlane can paint with more depth than Giotto ever did, you know. And god help you if you ever point out how hammy the acting in Citizen Kane is without giving it credit for showing ceilings or having an amazing pioneering tracking shot (which, let's be honest, has been surpassed numerous times by imitators and acolytes but you're not allowed to talk about that!)

So why are we acting like Quake or Goldeneye have to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with Medal of Dutyfield? They were important in their day. They're still good games if you judge them against their peers. Why not just enjoy them for what they are? Pioneering art?

Burning Eclipse

TomCo wrote: »

Agh!

I clicked the wrong option in the poll somehow.
Undo, Undo, UNDO!

Not somehow... Quite understandable how you did it.

Sorry OP but this is a pet peeve of mine. The thread title is one question, then the poll question is the opposite!

Short answer for me is it depends on the game.

KonFusion

No Atari Jaguar option?

I am disappoint.

As mentioned, it depends on the game. I went back to play Driver on the PS1 and found it impossible to play. The draw distance just made it unplayable for me. But look at mario, pac man, final fantasy, metal slug, Alundra, Apocalypse, to name but a few - As enjoyable to play as the day they came out.

super_furry

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyfIdDERnqU

Draw distance eh? I remember playing Turok to death on the N64, was blown away by it graphically when it came out. Now I can't even watch a video of it, much less play it.

Dravokivich

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

I never understood the whole "It looks tired and dated" attitude to things from yoinks ago. I'd be of the opinion that COD is tired and dated as it's been barely much more than the same thing brought out again and again for the last 6 years. But then, that's more of a case of exhaustion.

Randall Floyd

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

It depends on the type of game in my opinion, Goldeneye is the most glaring example of a game that has aged poorly when compared to modern games, but i will happily go back and play ocarina of time or Mario 64 and still find them as enjoyable now as i did at release.

Zillah

I played Chrono Trigger last year and it was amazing. I didn't play it before and I didn't play any of its siblings or cousins. FF7 would be the closest...which I didn't even like very much (that's probably going to sound trollish...).

Nothing to do with "for the time" or anything like that. It just just looks lovely, and the story is awesome, and the magic is fun.

ShadowHearth

Dravokivich wrote: »

I never understood the whole "It looks tired and dated" attitude to things from yoinks ago. I'd be of the opinion that COD is tired and dated as it's been barely much more than the same thing brought out again and again for the last 6 years. But then, that's more of a case of exhaustion.

I think you are missing the point between "did not aged" and "beating the dead horse"

Dravokivich

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I think you are missing the point between "did not aged" and "beating the dead horse"

No I get it. I just think it's wrong to look at something from completely different era's and judge it negatively against the more recent stuff. The dead horse is a problem to me, not older games.

Retr0gamer

sheehy83 wrote: »

Like I said in TLOU thread, Final Fantasy VII was realeased 16 years ago and is still brilliant to play. Obviously, most 'classics' are shyte to play today but a few like FF VII do exist.

I'd actually say it's aged badly in a lot of ways but as I said gameplay is all that matters and it kind of proves my point because FFVII is still an awful lot of fun no matter how old the visuals look or how ridiculous the story.

Zero-Cool

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

Ah FFVII had awful graphics (in-game) to begin with but the gameplay is still amazing. Then you have GTA 1 which was brilliant back in the day but it is unplayable now with the camera.

I have memories of Tomb Raider 1 and always brought great nostalgia thinking back. I saw it on PSN and was gonna get it but looked up some youtube vids and couldn't believe how bad it looked and how slow & choppy it was.

The majority of classics should remain as nostalgic childhood memories instead of being dug up and their 15 year old corpse being smeared across a 50 inch screen.

Vojera

It seems unfair to gaming, but I do think games age worse than other media. I don't know is it that the technology has come on so much in such a short time with games, but you can watch a film from 50 years ago and still appreciate it, but a game from 15-20 years ago, with few exceptions, just isn't going to stand up in the same way.

For me a good part of the reason is the interactivity aspect. I still play a fair amount of SNES and Mega Drive games that I like and which I think are fun, but there are plenty I've tried that made me want to tear my hair out, and that reason is laggy controls. It affects some games more than others, but when it's bad, it's a deal breaker. It doesn't matter how good the story or gameplay was at the time, those controls act as a real barrier to me enjoying the game.

Film (with the exception of dramatically bad CGI) doesn't have that problem. Music, on whatever format, doesn't have that problem. But the point of games is to give you an interactive experience. When you can't do that efficiently, it interferes with everything else about it.

That's why I look back fondly on Virtua Fighter on Mega Drive and Tekken on PS1 as the games that introduced me to beat-em-ups, but I'll never play them again. They were great at the time, but they have been surpassed.

Mr.Saturn

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

I was very much of the 'always moving on' philosophy ' through my teens; it was always a case of dropping the old for the new. It wasn't 'til I stumbled across Racketboy, Retrogamer, HG101 and Boards' very own A&R forum that I discovered just how much I'd missed out on over the years.

For the price of one AAA title new, I can afford a GBA, PS2, DC, SNES et al, and a couple of games that are as relevant and playable now as the day they were plopped out. Granted, there is an element of nostalgia among the larger community, which irks me for a couple of reasons, but ultimately no biggie, just a case of people overrating certain games, that's all.

If you're truly in it to discover all you let pass by over the gens, you'd be surprised just how rewarding a pastime it is.

There's also the fact that by the time you've caught up on certain consoles/libraries, those recent AAA games will have come down in price too.

C14N

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Gameplay doesn't age and while graphics can age, particularly early 3D, dismissing a game because of poor graphics is like dismissing a film because it's black and white. If you sat all games age badly you are just wrong.

I do think some games age a lot less than others (I do generally think that 2D games like the original Mario games and Street Fighter 2 hold up quite well) but I disagree about comparing it to a black and white film. To me, B&W is still a stylistic choice that people have gone for long after it was normal and it can still look really good. Low polygon-count and resolution is not something anyone would actually choose (although I'm sure some indie developer will prove me wrong).

I would think it's more like not watching a movie because it's on VHS. If the same game gets a port or an exact remake (which I would think of as being like a film getting scanned to DVD or Blu-ray) then I'd be all over it if it was a highly regarded game.

Case in point, I got Half Life 2 with the Orange Box and part way through that I decided to go back and play Half Life first so I bought it off Steam. It was really hard for me to get through though, just because everything technical about the game seems so dated now. I ended up not actually finishing it. When Source Beta was released though I made sure to get that and even though I only played the first hour or so, I'm still a lot more eager to get back to that one.

Saying that, I did play Ocarina of Time about 10 years after its original release (never got to play it when it came out) and the technical issues didn't affect it much at all for me. I played it to the end and still think its a great game by any standard. I'd still buy a full console re-release over

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for SD not looking nice anymore it's due to the cables you are using. You mention the Gamecube which can produce gorgeous visuals but if you are using composite cables (red, yellow and white) instead of RGB scart it's going to look disgraceful because of poor cable quality.

Maybe, I'll pop them into the Wii at some stage (with component cables) and see how they look there.

Retr0gamer

If a developer is good enough they can work within the confines of low polygon counts and make very appealing looking games. Just look how good some later PS1 games look like Megaman Legends 2 or the way Silent Hill uses draw distance covering fog to increase detail and uses it as a gameplay device.

Low polygon counts shouldn't spoil your appreciation of a game anyhow. If you have a good artist that knows the hardware they can gloss over it with tricks. That and a lot of the atmosphere in a game can be made up with good sound design.

C14N

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

Burning Eclipse wrote: »

Not somehow... Quite understandable how you did it.

Sorry OP but this is a pet peeve of mine. The thread title is one question, then the poll question is the opposite!

Sorry, if it's any consolation, I also picked the wrong option

who_me

Banjo wrote: »

There's no point looking at old games and asking if they stand up today. We don't do the same thing with Movies, books, plays, music, cars... No one looks at a ford model T and says "My Opel Astra kicks it's arse!" or talks about how the production on the new Justin Bieber album knocks anything Cream ever did out of the park. Todd MacFarlane can paint with more depth than Giotto ever did, you know. And god help you if you ever point out how hammy the acting in Citizen Kane is without giving it credit for showing ceilings or having an amazing pioneering tracking shot (which, let's be honest, has been surpassed numerous times by imitators and acolytes but you're not allowed to talk about that!)

So why are we acting like Quake or Goldeneye have to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with Medal of Dutyfield? They were important in their day. They're still good games if you judge them against their peers. Why not just enjoy them for what they are? Pioneering art?

With books, plays & music, the technology is fairly stable and unchanging, so they age well. But with games (and sometimes with movies, certainly with cars) the technology these things are built on is constantly evolving, and so often do seem dated.

IMO, the more realistic / simulation-like the game, the worse it ages. 2D/Cartoony games tend to keep their appeal.

o1s1n

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

sheehy83 wrote: »

The majority of classics should remain as nostalgic childhood memories instead of being dug up and their 15 year old corpse being smeared across a 50 inch screen.

Or you know, you could have a top of the range CRT and chose to play them the way they are meant to be played.

I still continue to play mostly games from the 16-32 bit gens as they're my favourite.

Not because they're nostalgic childhood memories but because they're great games and offer a greater challenge than most modern games.

I would much rather fire up Raiden on Alien Versus Predator on my arcade machines and try to 1cc them than sit through most modern hand holding games. It's more of a challenge, it's more fun. Well, to me anyway

marshbaboon

No, it's just not as good by today's standards

A true classic is as playable today as it was when it was released.