What Causes Some Video Games to Age Poorly, In Your Opinion? What Do You Feel Makes a Game Timeless?

[TheGreatCthulhu]

I consider Super Mario 64 timeless. Jumping running and dashing as Mario just feels as damn good as it always has done. There's something about the heaviness of the footstep sound effects and the skitting animations and the sheer gravitas of the jump. Just those kind of tactile joys is something that will never stop being fun to experience. Whereas mechanics like leveling up, or shooting demons with a gun that is fun at them moment but over time you notice that the gun lacks pressure and the feedback just isn't there, those things that feel satisfying on a more temporary level, are things that go out of time imo. Maybe I've derailed a bit from the OP that was more about artistic choices, but personally, I consider solid mechanics and thought-through design is t what makes games feel timeless.

Super Mario 64 was incredibly well designed, and more importantly, fun. I love that game, and it's also why I love Super Mario Odyssey because it feels like Super Mario 64.

And yeah, the main point here was that I feel a game is timeless when it's really fun, and what makes it fun are certain design choices that are themselves timeless.

For example, Doom is my favorite FPS series (except Doom 3), largely because every aspect of its design was well thought out, and it having guns that have massive impact is a huge thing for an FPS game for me.

Same with platformers really. A platformer with well thought out level design, snappy controls, and good tactile feedback as well as clear indications between safety zones and hazards really make those games fun for me. It's why I consistently praise Mario games because for 2D and 3D platformers, they're incredibly well designed and thought-out.

 

[the8thark]

Games age poorly because they no longer are fun when compared to more modern games.

A game can age technically but still be quite fun to play. Ocarina of Time is a good example of this. The game in many aspects has aged very poorly, but it's still a very fun game to play, thus people still want to play it, and thus it has not aged so poorly.
Classic DOOM / DOOM2 is another good example. People still play vanilla and the mods, today. 2.5D FPS games with 8 directional sprites is ancient gaming technology now. But the game got so much of the basics right (which many games of today do not get right) it makes the game so much fun to play even today.

Why do people want to play games that have aged graphics, antique camera set ups and low frame rates (by modern standards)?
This is because all the basics that every video game has (from the 70's till today and in the future) needs to be good. Responsive controls, fun gameplay, a good hook that keeps you playing to the very end, and a little innovative idea or concept thrown in.

In the debates of:
Graphics vs Aesthetics
Music quality vs composition quality

It's the later of each that lasts the test of time. Some of the NES/SNES games look amazing despite the fact they are 240p. Also the NES had 5 voices or sound channels but they were fixed and not flexible at all, inferior to the C64's 3 more flexible voices. However most NES music is superior because they were composed so much better. Same deal with the SNES more sampled style of music, technically inferior but compositionally superior.

Almost every Nintendo game (apart from a few Gamecube exceptions) were using inferior graphics to the better games on competing consoles. However aesthetically the Nintendo games were often much better, using a better colour pallets, more sensible graphical styles (ie knowing when to use semi-realism and when to use things like cel-shading or other styles).

No game is technically the best forever, new technology will always come up to beat it. However a game can be forever aesthetically amazing if evvort is put in to make sure all that polish is there to make the game look and feel amazing.

 

[TheGreatCthulhu]

Games age poorly because they no longer are fun when compared to more modern games.

A game can age technically but still be quite fun to play. Ocarina of Time is a good example of this. The game in many aspects has aged very poorly, but it's still a very fun game to play, thus people still want to play it, and thus it has not aged so poorly.
Classic DOOM / DOOM2 is another good example. People still play vanilla and the mods, today. 2.5D FPS games with 8 directional sprites is ancient gaming technology now. But the game got so much of the basics right (which many games of today do not get right) it makes the game so much fun to play even today.

Why do people want to play games that have aged graphics, antique camera set ups and low frame rates (by modern standards)?
This is because all the basics that every video game has (from the 70's till today and in the future) needs to be good. Responsive controls, fun gameplay, a good hook that keeps you playing to the very end, and a little innovative idea or concept thrown in.

In the debates of:
Graphics vs Aesthetics
Music quality vs composition quality

It's the later of each that lasts the test of time. Some of the NES/SNES games look amazing despite the fact they are 240p. Also the NES had 5 voices or sound channels but they were fixed and not flexible at all, inferior to the C64's 3 more flexible voices. However most NES music is superior because they were composed so much better. Same deal with the SNES more sampled style of music, technically inferior but compositionally superior.

Almost every Nintendo game (apart from a few Gamecube exceptions) were using inferior graphics to the better games on competing consoles. However aesthetically the Nintendo games were often much better, using a better colour pallets, more sensible graphical styles (ie knowing when to use semi-realism and when to use things like cel-shading or other styles).

No game is technically the best forever, new technology will always come up to beat it. However a game can be forever aesthetically amazing if evvort is put in to make sure all that polish is there to make the game look and feel amazing.

Absolutely agree. It's why I argue that poor gameplay mechanics or controls that are unresponsive or counter-intuitive will age a game far faster than old graphics, in my opinion.

To bring a series into this, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided looks more aged in my eyes than the original Deus Ex. The original had sharp, intuitive, and mechanically sound gameplay, the story was very well written, and the characters were interesting. Even though Mankind Divided is technically graphically superior with decent gameplay, it just doesn't feel that good compared to the first game.

As a result, the first game has aged quite well.

I boil it down to this, if a game was fun 10 years ago, it'll be fun today, and if so, it's aged fine.

 

[Quin]

Maybe its just me or I can just adapt back easily but I don't believe much in games aging. I can still enjoy good NES or even atari games, All the games people say that aged badly were never good to begin with, Like the original Monster Hunter or Dragon Quest 1 on NES. I think its mostly a case of nostalgia where people have fond memories of bad games they used to play and find out it wasn't as good as they thought.

 

[Jirohnagi]

A game that can't keep you enthralled with it as it used to can cause it to age horrifically, awkward controls or just plain dodgy camera can all screw the feels up.

For me a timeless has to be Dark Chronicles (Dark Cloud 2) it has story, not to repetitive combat, offers ways to level up has a hell of an interesting world, gives things to do inbetween dungeons and has a town building part that keeps me going back and redesigning it the towns constantly, hell you can even recruit people for those towns. It's always a pleasure to play because it doesn't feel like something you've gotta force, you can just sit down and go with it, easy to start up and easy to stop as well.

 

[Princess Niki]

Trying to be too realistic, cuz those graphics never age right.

 

[TheGreatCthulhu]

Trying to be too realistic, cuz those graphics never age right.

Some do, some don't. The shades of brown "realism" never looked good initially, and aged like mud. To this day, I wonder why that trend was so popular.

However, realistic graphics can age well, developers have to put in more time into their lighting, normal map work, and so on.

But you are right, games that show more style than bland shades of brown realism tend to age better.

 

[Castle]

If you're gonna judge a game solely on its graphics then every video game is going to age. Making your game's graphics so ultra stylized that it might as well have come from another planet is just smearing a superficial coating over what are still going to be old graphics compared to something 20 years later.

If we're going to judge a game primarily on its gameplay as we should be doing, however, then good games can fare better in their old age.

The graphics of Dragon's Dogma, for instance, looked sub par compared to other titles in the same year it released. Today, the graphics look down right atrocious compared to modern titles. But it's the game's slick combat, responsive controls, innovative companion AI system, unique multiplayer, compelling challenge and robust RPG system that stands the test of time.

The graphics of Thief look antiquated today, but the game still remains a glorious showcase of outstanding level design and the game's lighting and sound system establish an ambiance that even modern titles are hard pressed to surpass.

The graphics of Doom and Quake are hardly cutting edge nowadays, but the tight action gameplay of those sorts of old shooter titles are still legendary. The crude humor of Duke Nukem and Shadow Warrior stand the test of time, and the clever writing of games like Monkey Island and Grim Fandango will always appeal.

I think the biggest factor that causes games to age poorly are old abandoned gameplay tropes that were discarded for good reason. Things such as checkpoint saves. Hence, why Resident Evil doesn't have typewriter ribbons anymore. Tank controls and static camera angels. Amateur voice acting. Full motion video, and such.

Even games released within the last few years are going to age rapidly if they have the much maligned obligatory turret section or regenerating health or even iron sights - gameplay mechanics that became popular recently but that have rapidly fallen out of favor. Any open world game with collectables is going to look like a sign of its time in a few short years.

 

[TheGreatCthulhu]

If you're gonna judge a game solely on its graphics then every video game is going to age. Making your game's graphics so ultra stylized that it might as well have come from another planet is just smearing a superficial coating over what are still going to be old graphics compared to something 20 years later.

If we're going to judge a game primarily on its gameplay as we should be doing, however, then good games can fare better in their old age.

The graphics of Dragon's Dogma, for instance, looked sub par compared to other titles in the same year it released. Today, the graphics look down right atrocious compared to modern titles. But it's the game's slick combat, responsive controls, innovative companion AI system, unique multiplayer, compelling challenge and robust RPG system that stands the test of time.

The graphics of Thief look antiquated today, but the game still remains a glorious showcase of outstanding level design and the game's lighting and sound system establish an ambiance that even modern titles are hard pressed to surpass.

The graphics of Doom and Quake are hardly cutting edge nowadays, but the tight action gameplay of those sorts of old shooter titles are still legendary. The crude humor of Duke Nukem and Shadow Warrior stand the test of time, and the clever writing of games like Monkey Island and Grim Fandango will always appeal.

I think the biggest factor that causes games to age poorly are old abandoned gameplay tropes that were discarded for good reason. Things such as checkpoint saves. Hence, why Resident Evil doesn't have typewriter ribbons anymore. Tank controls and static camera angels. Amateur voice acting. Full motion video, and such.

Even games released within the last few years are going to age rapidly if they have the much maligned obligatory turret section or regenerating health or even iron sights - gameplay mechanics that became popular recently but that have rapidly fallen out of favor. Any open world game with collectables is going to look like a sign of its time in a few short years.

The post deals with gameplay aging not just graphics. Granted, that section is longer, because graphics have more factors at play.

I firmly believe that gameplay either makes a game age well, or ages it like mold. If it isn't fun now, I don't think it'll be fun 10 years down the line.