>>12283627
s*ga s*stem spammer thread

is that so

It was rough around the edges and a little janky even when it came out. I played it again last year and had a great time.

>>12283637
Same, controls are wonky and there's some bullshit moments but I greatly enjoyed my time with it.

>>12283627
This was the system mover more than mario 64 ever was and it's a based game that filters low iq types with bad dexterity like any good game should.

>>12283627
Controls are weak, but the atmosphere is GOATed. Level design is also pretty damn good. Very video gamey, but also star-warsy.

File: caucasian-man-drinking-mi(...).jpg (128 KB, 1300x1079)

128 KB JPG

>>12283627

I remember renting Rogue Squadron and being absolutely blown away, then renting this afterwards and being so fucking mad and disappointed. I know now that it was pretty unfair to it but god damn, what a mess it was to play.

>>12283806
Rouge Squadron was basically made to be a sequel to the parts of Shadows people liked.

>>12283817
I thought it was meant to be a console version of the X-Wing series on PC?

>>12283627
Not at all I played it again recently and it held up

Only zoomers who never actually played it back then would say this

>>12283627
All games on the N64 aged like milk, except DOOM64 and RE2

>>12283627
This games has one of the hugest levels of that generation and no loading screens whatsoever:

https://youtu.be/BQO-I_WA-kw?si=26E7mVry0H_4IKwz

>>12283823
Anon, no.

File: N64 Magazine 1 - 047.jpg (1.75 MB, 2560x3180)

1.75 MB JPG

>>12283827
Anon, even at the time magazines were calling the game uneven in quality.

>>12284017
>recommends switching to the first person view
Review discarded. It was by no means a 10/10 game, perhaps a generous 7/10, but holy shit that is awful fucking advice.

File: N64 Magazine 1 - 051.jpg (1.99 MB, 2560x3180)

1.99 MB JPG

>>12284018
They gave it a 78/100 (Turok got a 91).
And yeah, I have no idea what they were on about with that advice.

>>12284021
That's fair. The on-foot levels compare very unfavorably to Turok, which was a pretty big deal when you probably had to make a choice between the two.

>>12284017
it just feels ass to play
its hard to explain but it feels like a 2d platformer or a run n gun but with early 3d mechanics

>>12283627
My favorite 64 game

I beat this without knowing there's a strafe button

>>12284350
On hard?

>>12284021
Them calling everything a "Doom style level" is really pissing me off.

>>12284531
"Doom style", "Doom clone" etc was just the term for the genre later called fps, kiddo.

I loved fighting the big tentacle boss in the sewer level. Freaked me out at first.

>>12284534
No, it wasn't. No one referred to Shadows of the Empire levels as "doom style levels". I would know. I played it when it came out.

>>12284553
I did.

>>12283986
Yeah but isn’t that really big level split into two sections?

I think I remember a couple weeks ago two super retards were in the most bitter argument on here about a stupid blurry texture in that same level (I think) that is supposed to look like an n64.

Anyways, you could say it aged like milk but as a 1996 game I think its great. They all aged like milk from back then if you want to look at it like that. Its a little older than you’d think. Compare it to the third person shooters/platformers of the day (Apocalypse and Tomb Raider come to mind), and it’s pretty unique and not any more janky. Mega Man Legends, One, Syphon Filter and Metal Gear Solid weren’t released yet. Arguably better n64 third person shooters like Winback and Jet Force Gemini were still way far off. It’s not a great comparison.

People never shut up about how great Burning Rangers (from 1998!) is on this board but SOTE is older, much longer, less janky and has way more varied gameplay.

Saying that something has "aged" is a loaded statement. It means that you believe the game isn't up with "modern standards".
Considering that modern standards are shit, by saying that something has "aged" you're only vocalizing your shit taste.

>>12283827
The opening level on Hoth is fun.
The rest of the game is just different flavours of shit.

>>12283627
I played it as a kid and thought it was dogshit
It has that n64 mystique but its way too hard and it feels on accident. Its like they programmed a NES top down shooter and grafted it onto a 3D engine and didn't scale the difficulty to accommodate your lack of perspective

>>12283627
>aged like milk
Average n64 game.

>>12284732
My thoughts as well

>>12284732
complaining about modern "standards" is a brainlet self tell. we get it, you're a bitter, jaded fuck. you're tired of "woke", you're tired of disappointing remakes, you're tired of gaas and mtx. we get it. but if you GENUINELY think that there are ZERO good games, you're the one broadcasting your own shit taste and inability to think critically. most of the time, you just have to look beyond AAA, but there are even AAA that are actually good. being a pretentious contrarian is pathetic. as "shit" as modern halo games are, they still play well, and are way better than goldeneye (and shadows of the empire here). hell, you even just go to 3, or reach, to be better than goldeneye. sperg out all you want about moons in odyssey, it is objectively more fleshed out and interesting than 64. yes, botw is very DIFFERENT from oot, but it is far more robust and expansive, and offering far more challenge (and yes, while still a children's game, i mean MORE challenge, not necessarily "actual" challenge. engaging 10 braincells is still more than engaging 2). flopspoken doesnt matter when shit like bm-wukong exist.

some things hold up better than others (usually in the 2d medium), but pretty much everything on the n64 has aged like milk, because it is very primitive for the 3d medium. you can complain about "woke", but that has nothing to do with level design. you can complain about mtx/gaas, but that has nothing to do with controls.

argue all you want about "standards", there are still plenty of things that meet modern "potential" (not even "pinnacle" or "perfection" mind you) that absolutely blow old shit like this out of the water. they age. cope and deal with it.

>>12285713
It's a retro gaming board, kid. Expect that posters here like older games.
You were making a lot of assumptions like thinking it's about "woke" or whatever.
If this were made today it'd probably be 50% voiced cutscenes and you'd go from one overly-designed setpiece with waves of enemies through hallways to the next setpiece and cutscene.

File: ''''gameplay''''.webm (2.46 MB, 1920x1080)

2.46 MB WEBM

>>12285713
Reading this is giving me a headache. You are just relentlessly stupid, and your post reeks of "ghetto black" vibes.

First off; Goldeneye is better than Reach. It just is.

Secondly; BOTW is overrated and not challenging in the slightest.

Thirdly; games do not age. A story well told, is a story well told, similarly to if a game is well designed, it stays well designed. Other games may improve upon its design on later iterations, but that does not make the original any less well designed than it already was. Video games, books, music, and film are not like food, or living beings, they do not "age" and "deteriorate" and lose their luster over time. They are static snapshots of creativity as they were, and are unchanging.

This idea that things "age" is from the perspective of people who become superficially spoiled by artificial luxuries and conveniences, like improved graphics, sound, and new control schemes. If you can filter out all of that noise and focus on the gameplay, which is the core of what matters in a video game, they do not age.

>>12285752
>Expect that posters here like older games.
theres nothing wrong with liking them.
recognizing/admitting that they've aged poorly doesnt undo the fun times you had or prevent you from tapping in to that to have fun again.
>If this were made today it'd probably be 50% voiced cutscenes and you'd go from one overly-designed setpiece with waves of enemies through hallways to the next setpiece and cutscene.
meanwhile, the n64 is known for its vast expanses of sweeping emptiness. mario64, empty. oot, empty. mariokart laughably empty (like seriously, every time they bring back a 64 track for a cup, its always the widest, emptiest, most boring track in the cup). and while i can agree that there is far more emphasis on story and presenting that (a lot of players genuinely like that), especially in AAA, there are plenty of games that dont do that too. and if you only care about the gameplay, then as along as the cutscenes are skippable, then it shouldnt be much of a problem.

>>12285810
and your post reeks of terminally online 4chan brainrot, but i'll humor you anyway.
>"ghetto black" vibes
lol 4chan
>Goldeneye is better than Reach
delusion as usual
>BOTW is not challenging in the slightest
neither is oot. both are children's games. i addressed this. good job with the literacy.
>games dont age
they really do, because time and context progress. as such, comparisons for quality arise, and where things fall in comparison change. some hold up more than others, but things do age.
>Other games may improve upon its design on later iterations, but that does not make the original any less well designed than it already was.
that is literally how aging works. stone or bronze weapons may have still been able to kill, but design improvements have outclassed them. the musket may have been revolutionary and cutting edge at the time, but it is a relic of the past as firearms have evolved. all manner of machinery is like this. cars, planes, engines, computers, etc. while they may still be able to operate at their original level of quality, that level is so far down the chart in comparison that they are considered to have "aged" and that level of quality is now considered "low quality".
>they do not "age" and "deteriorate" and lose their luster over time
the term "age" does not exclusively mean to deteriorate into eventual nothingness. this is an absolutely retarded notion to operate under.
>focus on the gameplay, which is the core of what matters in a video game
which you are objectively incapable of doing if you truly champion the n64 as something of enduring quality. willful ignorance at its finest.

File: YX4IXT36OKU7KPDP2MDUBFGHVM.jpg (53 KB, 576x613)

53 KB JPG

>>12285891
>delusion as usual
Goldeneye 007 Metacritic score = 96
Halo Reach Metacritic score = 91

I rest my case.

>neither is oot. both are children's games. i addressed this. good job with the literacy.
It requires substantially more thought and skill. Point negated.

>they really do, because time and context progress. as such, comparisons for quality arise, and where things fall in comparison change. some hold up more than others, but things do age.
Wrong, which is why we have a Western Canon, where works that are thousands of years old are still highly revered as timeless works. Same can be said for video games. Just because you particularly can't appreciate them means nothing, really.

>that is literally how aging works. stone or bronze weapons may have still been able to kill, but design improvements have outclassed them. the musket may have been revolutionary and cutting edge at the time, but it is a relic of the past as firearms have evolved. all manner of machinery is like this. cars, planes, engines, computers, etc. while they may still be able to operate at their original level of quality, that level is so far down the chart in comparison that they are considered to have "aged" and that level of quality is now considered "low quality".
Those things are designed to meet a specific goal. Video games are designed to be entertaining. If Pac-Man is just as entertaining as the latest triple-A slop, then that's that. Your point is a retarded false equivalence. These two things are not the same. Pretending they are only strengthens my point.

>the term "age" does not exclusively mean to deteriorate into eventual nothingness. this is an absolutely retarded notion to operate under.
Age - Verb - to become old : show the effects or the characteristics of increasing age.

You are a fucking moron.

>which you are objectively incapable of doing if you truly champion the n64 as something of enduring quality. willful ignorance at its finest.
Gaslighting cope. Next.

>>12286037
>Goldeneye 007 Metacritic score = 96
>Halo Reach Metacritic score = 91
Insane and deranged

>>12285752
>>12285810
This dude has been running around multiple threads and I'm starting to think it's a legitimate autistic person. He's particularly easy to trigger if you mention anything about trannys. Glad I can confirm he's not from here though with >>12285891
>lol 4chan

Dunno why he's targeting /vr/ of all places, but something's got his panties in a bunch.

>>12286037
You BTFO of that anon.
>>12286325
>Halo KWAB

>>12286325
But you didn't say it was wrong.

>>12286037
>i cant think or reason anything for myself, let me appeal to metacritic
lmao.

how impressed people were at the time, or how much they personally enjoy something is not the same as quality. a few dozen or a couple thousand scores isnt much compared to the actual amount of people that played it. and literally none of it matters when it comes down to actual scrutiny. but obviously critical thought is beyond you.
>western canon
an entirely different medium for one, but also something that doesnt carry nearly the same sort of technical improvements. while the language itself does age and change with time, the core story beats, concepts, and lessons are what make them timeless. it doesnt really compare, but its really cute of you to miss the point entirely and fish for something to support your stance. too bad its wildly tangential.
>Video games are designed to be entertaining.
that is only one aspect of what they are. people find slop like vampire survivors and megabonk entertaining. that doesnt mean that they are good quality games. most reviewers dont know how to make that distinction either.

some games have more depth, nuance, versatility, and expanse than other games. sometimes this is to their advantage, but sometimes to their detriment if they stumble in one area. sometimes simplicity works to a game's advantage, like tetris. theres no story or characters, or anything to invoke the human experience. it is purely the objective, and reliant on human skill. there isnt a whole lot add or improve on. its a game that ages really well. something like sote or goldeneye? yuck and yikes. controls, objectives, graphics, story, even arguably player challenge, have all been wildly improved upon to create things that can be easily considered better games. if you still have fun with them, great! if you still love them and call them a favorite, great! if you dont want to touch anything newer, oh well. none of that is relevant to the point though. (cont)

>>12286037
>>12286592
(cont)
"but i like it and i can still like it" are irrelevant. its not about liking it. its about discussing something's quality.
>Age - Verb - to become old : show the effects or the characteristics of increasing age.
and what are those characteristics, anon? perhaps showing it to be distinctly a product of it's time? being of a distinctly different quality than things from other times? not meeting the higher standards that other/newer things set as time goes on? you're literally just in denial. nobody cares how much you enjoy beans on toast. better food HAS come out.

>>12286358
>This dude has been running around multiple threads
i havent posted in weeks.
>He's particularly easy to trigger if you mention anything about trannys.
i hate trannies as much as the next guy, so i dont understand what you mean. perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else.
>I can confirm he's not from here
i've been here since like 07 or 08. i just dont let the slop of 4chan mentality affect me to point of schizophrenically blaming everything on blacks, jeets, or trannies. i dont subscribe to "us vs them" /pol/ shit. present a point or dont post, thats it.
>targeting /vr/
i dont see how commenting on a concept, in a thread that i clicked on because i played the game as a kid, is "targeting" anything, but go ahead, feel like your precious little clubhouse is under attack or whatever.

>>12286037
>>12286325
also, its funny, i went to the metacritic page to try and see just how old those reviews are. they give short shitpost versions about how goldeneye is the best game you could possibly ever play and such, but the links to the "full review" on site are literally all broken. i find it hard to give any credence to or put any stock into the validity of something that is merely sensationalism and "good at the time", especially in regards to retrospect and how well something currently holds up.

File: 0sdikokk7de71.jpg (24 KB, 512x215)

24 KB JPG

>>12286037
oh and i forgot the funniest part
>It (oot) requires substantially more thought and skill.
lol
lmao even

>>12286623
>i find it hard to give any credence to or put any stock into the validity of something that is merely sensationalism and "good at the time", especially in regards to retrospect and how well something currently holds up
Why would a review from 30 years ago have the foreshadowing to address something or techonology no one would know anything about in the future? I'm not even sure why I replied to you because you're clearly not mentally sane.

>>12283806

That's got to be the best Star Wars game ever made right? I guess KotoR would compete but I never played it

File: fuck you.webm (1.88 MB, 720x404)

1.88 MB WEBM

>>12286592
>i cant think or reason anything for myself, let me appeal to metacritic
Nice strawman, junior. This is what we call "evidence-based reasoning". You called me delusional for saying Goldeneye was better than Reach, so, I provided evidence to support my argument, which I also believe independently. This is called "logic". I know it's a foreign concept for a retarded shitposting reject who assumes everyone shares his own retarded opinion, but bear with me.

>a few dozen or a couple thousand scores isnt much compared to the actual amount of people that played it
Funny you should mention that, because Goldeneye sold 8 million copies, compared to Halo Reach's 4.7 million. Even if we round that out to a nice 5 million units, it still pales in comparison. So, by 3 of your own metrics; my personal opinion, critical opinion, and volume of people who enjoyed the game, you're wrong.

>but obviously critical thought is beyond you.
Mmm, obviously. I clearly lack the biased retarded viewpoint positioning of basing my metrics for things off YOUR exclusive perspective.

>an entirely different medium for one,
YOU JUST FUCKING COMPARED VIDEO GAMES TO IRON AGE WEAPONRY, YOU FUCKING RETARDED FAGGOT.

>. that doesnt mean that they are good quality games. most reviewers dont know how to make that distinction either.
I don't like them either, but nobody gives a shit what you personally think, especially if you can't substantiate actual reasoning beyond insisting people agree with you, just because.

>>12286609
>"but i like it and i can still like it" are irrelevant. its not about liking it. its about discussing something's quality.
And people liking it means it has some inherent quality, you dogshit brained retard.

>perhaps showing it to be distinctly a product of it's time?
That would be "Dated" then, not aged, which is different.

>better food HAS come out.
Steak has been around for thousands of years, and it still beats anything you can probably "invent". Fuck off.

>>12283627
yeah well so did your wife but you still fuck her, don't ya? this is sorta the same

>>12286639
>Why would a review from 30 years ago have the foreshadowing...
it wouldnt. thats my point. its irrelevant to the topic so the score doesnt matter. if you're agreeing with my point but still think im the crazy one, then im pretty sure its actually just you.

>>12286653
>saying Goldeneye was better than Reach, so, I provided evidence to support my argument
better than, or more beloved? they arent the same thing. i know its a foreign concept for a retard like you.
>sales
sales are a measure of commercial success, not quality, and certainly not enduring quality. you're still just appealing to "people like(d) it"
>basing my metrics for things off YOUR exclusive perspective.
its not about my experience. or your experience. its not about such a silly, subjective thing. and while fun/entertainment is a small component in the topic of quality, it takes a back seat to much more objective things. even if part of the discussion is "well i had MORE fun playing this than that", the discussion then goes into figuring out "why" and what causes that, nds notwithstanding.
>YOU JUST FUCKING COMPARED VIDEO GAMES TO IRON AGE WEAPONRY
because it has aspects that follow the same sort of progression due to mechanical innovations and improvements. theres no connection or mechanical innovations and improvements on expressing the human condition through literature. i chose it as an easy to understand illustration. you're trying to say that because stories age well, that everything ages well. are you really trying to argue that its still fair to call the musket a firearm of great quality?
>beyond insisting people agree with you, just because.
thats what you're doing. "look at the numbers! look at the reviews!" and negative reviews also exist. but those dont count, right? why not? because they dont agree with YOUR opinion? because they arent the majority? they still exist though. regardless, again, its not about liking the game or not. and for the record, i had a lot of fun playing vampire survivors and megabonk. i still recognize that they're straight up slop though.
>And people liking it means it has some inherent quality
it has some appeal, not necessarily quality. and certainly not indicative of enduring quality (the actual topic). (cont)

File: hula-hoop-and-stick.jpg (33 KB, 450x300)

33 KB JPG

>>12286653
>>12286718
(cont)
>That would be "Dated" then, not aged, which is different.
lmao hilarious equivocation cope.

why dont you go roll a hoop with a stick. i hear its an incredible game.

>>12284732
Trying to say that games dont age only outs you as a perpetual manchild desperately clinging to youth and nostalgia. Its OK to grow up up, Anon.

>>12286653
>sold 8 million copies, compared to Halo Reach's 4.7 million
yeah but time splitters 3 has better multiplayer than golden eye though

>>12286829
Timesplitters have age like milk tho

>>12286852
So have you but I'd still kiss you.

>>12286857
Im really ugly bro

>>12284021
Honestly the ship battles were cool but they felt more like filler to me when I got the game. ( I was in grade school ) what sold me on the game was the on foot sections. They pretty much all has a strong ambience and sucked you into the Star Wars universe. It all looked and felt really authentic.

File: 1583615795300.webm (2.09 MB, 398x398)

2.09 MB WEBM

>>12286718
>better than, or more beloved? they arent the same thing.
You saw what I wrote, you're just needlessly delving into irrelevant semantics because you have no arguments to make. Sad and pathetic.

>sales are a measure of commercial success, not quality, and certainly not enduring quality. you're still just appealing to "people like(d) it"
>that's not a measure of quality
>enduring quality
>just appealing to "people liked it"
You are beyond fucking stupid.

> the discussion then goes into figuring out "why" and what causes that, nds notwithstanding.
Right, you're using vague, nebulous, meaningless terms and metrics to determine that you're correct no matter what because all objective criteria points to Goldeneye being a better game that more people liked and more people still play regularly even, and you have nothing to counter that. If you do, provide evidence. I will wait.

>because it has aspects that follow the same sort of progression
Yea, and my comparison had aspects more relevant to the discussion, dumbshit.

>and negative reviews also exist. but those dont count, right? why not? because they dont agree with YOUR opinion? because they arent the majority? they still exist though.
Okay, negative reviews of Halo Reach also exist, so it's shit and nobody likes it, hah-hah, I win. There's your argument. It's fucking stupid and relies on minority appeal because again, you have no argument. You're just padding and running your mouth aimlessly in the hopes I'll give up. Which I won't. I'm more stubborn and more correct than you. And I will NEVER stop replying.

>it has some appeal, not necessarily quality
No, it has a ton of appeal, more-so than Halo Reach, which is why it sold more, got better reviews, and has a larger fanbase, and according to twitch, has more concurrent viewers.

>>12286723
>lmao hilarious equivocation cope.
Oh great, you don't know what equivocation means either.

File: najib-bottle-flip.gif (301 KB, 220x391)

301 KB GIF

>>12286723
>why dont you go roll a hoop with a stick. i hear its an incredible game.
So the retard finally gave up and just started appealing to ridicule. How about you go flip some bottles? I hear that's the new crazy trend all the kids are doing these days instead of playing Goldeneye, lmao.

>>12287492
That's kinda what the review says too.
>If you're an enormous Star Wars fan, you'll want to consider Shadows as one of the first games you buy.

>>12287515
It’s a good game. Idk how they did it, but the game is very cool and an enjoyable action game while simultaneously having a lot of ominous feeling environments or places that feel scary or weird (mix of art design and early 3d possibly) but realistic at the same time. The empire also seems dangerous in this game and the main character while being a badass seems in over his head. I remember as a kid playing it even the atst scared me in this game with its weird face it has. Everyone talks about the wampas. Ig88 also. The weird octopus thing. Weird ass droids in the xizors palace. That weird ass fucking giant robot that turns into a floating head. The draw distance fog and everythinf else honestly make it feel stressful and almost like a horror game at times. idk why. They don’t really make starwars game with atmosphere like that anymore.

>>12287978
I thought and still think it's more impressive than mario64 and Shadows of the empire was always the kiosk game during the early 64 years. It's not easy so I understand why low iq types dislike it.

>>12287508
>you're using vague, nebulous, meaningless terms and metrics
no, im looking at actual game design and construction, not subjective impressions of people at the time. sensationalism at the time is not an "objective" point, clown.
>more people still play regularly even
lmao source: my ass. you have absolutely zero proof of that. but since metacritic is your bible, why does halo 3 and reach have more player reviews at over 3k, while goldeneye has just 1k? at the MILLIONS difference, how could that POSSIBLY be? im sure that you would still reply with "but goldeneye is still a higher score", conveniently ignoring how statistics and sample sizes work, especially with such narrow margin differences. dont bother replying to this part, because i genuinely dont care about metacritic, i just thought it was funny to point how inconsistent and unreliable it is yet again.
>my comparison had aspects more relevant to the discussion (because my point is things not aging. the actual semantics dont have to matter, just the conclusion!)
lmao what a retard.
>There's your argument. It's fucking stupid
no, thats YOUR argument, and it was me showing it to you. glad you could recognize that its stupid though.
>relies on minority appeal
and majority make anything automatically correct, right? lmao
>Which I won't. I'm more stubborn and more correct than you. And I will NEVER stop replying.
thank you for proving my point. the deranged zealotry behind the n64 should be studied. dont forget to take your meds, schizo.

>>12287508
I still play this game regularly, it's probably the n64 game I've played the most.

File: 1518760883927.png (219 KB, 436x361)

219 KB PNG

>>12288452
>no, im looking at actual game design and construction,
No you aren't, you're just using vague nebulous terms and not pointing out a single objective facet of it. Please, go ahead, list them off, without sounding vague. Are you referring to the hit feedback on enemies? Goldeneye is superior in that. Are you talking about the freedom of the player to tackle objectives in an order/manner they deem fit? Goldeneye wins in that regard. Are you talking about variety of levels and weapons? Goldeneye wins again. Please, give me one, just ONE, objective critique about how the game design is inferior to Halo Reach.

>lmao source: my ass
Go on Twitch and browse who's watching what games, retard.

>why does halo 3 and reach have more player reviews at over 3k, while goldeneye has just 1k?
Which score is higher?

>lmao what a retard.
Non-argument from a dipshit thumb-ass-fucking retard, not a surprise.

>no, thats YOUR argument, and it was me showing it to you
No, it wasn't, retard. My argument did not revolve around taking minority opinions and plastering them as fact. That is YOUR argument. Go get raped to death.

>and majority make anything automatically correct, right? lmao
See, precisely what I'm talking about. End of debate.

>thank you for proving my point. the deranged zealotry behind the n64 should be studied. dont forget to take your meds, schizo.
Thank you for proving my point. You have no argument so you will persist no matter what, in spite of insurmountable evidence to the contrary of what you're saying, all because you're a zoomer faggot who's butthurt that OLD IS BAD was wrong. Get fucked to death by a spiked dildo from your mother's strapon, you quadroon peanut Arbuckle piece of shit.

>>12288472
>Please, give me one, just ONE
controls. :)

your absolute seethe is really funny though. how old were you when you got your n64? was it for christmas?

File: 1761602793870127.png (150 KB, 372x328)

150 KB PNG

>>12286037
>>12286325
Halo:CE has a 97.

>>12288472
>Go on Twitch and browse who's watching what games, retard.
There are far more people playing modern games than retro games. By your logic, that majority means that they are better games, since more people love and play them more. I know that you were focused on that specific example to "own" that Anon, but you might make better points if you weren't so busy having a meltdown.

>>12288627
>There are far more people playing modern games than retro games
Nice goalpost move.

> By your logic, that majority means that they are better games, since more people love and play them more. I know that you were focused on that specific example to "own" that Anon, but you might make better points if you weren't so busy having a meltdown.
Not my argument, retard.

>>12288491
>controls. :)
Sure, but that's negated since it's now on the Switch and Xbox, and is emulated on PC with mouse injection. Get dunked on retard-faggot.

>your absolute seethe is really funny though. how old were you when you got your n64? was it for christmas?
Projecting about how you got Halo Reach for your birthday?

>>12283817
I played that Hoth level so much

>>12283986
Holy shit, Dash Rendar is that good?

>>12288653
no he's right, your whole argument hinges on majority opinions.
>>12288664
>emulation and modding exists, so actually flaws arent really flaws
nice cope. now who's goalpost moving?
>Projecting about how you got Halo Reach for your birthday?
nope, i only played reach a couple of times at a friend's house. personally, i liked 3 better anyway, but they're almost the same game and pretty tied for what i think is the pinnacle of the series, thats why i even brought them up as an example. on twitch i only see 5 streams and 29 viewers for goldeneye, but masterchief collection seems to have quite a few more, with 968 viewers. steamcharts also shows 8k players an hour ago, with consistent daily highs of 7-10k. its really a shame that we dont have data for goldeneye, it must be in the millions, huh?

but seriously, how old were you when you first got your n64?

>>12283986
When people say a game feels floaty, this is always my frame of reference. Then I go and check what they're talking about, and you have maybe a quarter-second longer hang-time than necessary. Not phasing through terrain because the jump allows you to literally float above where you landed.

>>12283986
>no loading screens whatsoever
3:44

File: 1583614043196.webm (2.68 MB, 384x480)

2.68 MB WEBM

>>12288708
>no he's right, your whole argument hinges on majority opinions.
ERRRRR, wrong, maybe you should check the playback retard, it hinges on multiple metrics collectively. I don't base it purely on popularity. If I did, then I would argue that Halo Reach is the better game since it technically has MORE positive reviews, you cunt-tarded retard fuck. Goldeneye has 21 reviews, Halo Reach has 99 reviews.

Now pull another dumb argument from your golem-monkey ass.

>nice cope. now who's goalpost moving?
Nice how you moved the goalposts again by dismissing the fact I stated the Switch and Xbox also has it, retard monkey.

>steamcharts also shows 8k players an hour ago, with consistent daily highs of 7-10k. its really a shame that we dont have data for goldeneye, it must be in the millions, huh?
ERRRRR, wrong, that's for the Master Chief collection dumbass, which is 6 games combined into one, 2 of which fall into the "retro category" so you're just supporting my argument even more.

>>12284732
>It means that you believe the game isn't up with "modern standards".
and they aren't.

>>12285713
red pilled
Imagine, IMAGINE, arguing about having standards.

>>12285810
>Goldeneye is better than Reach.
lol lmao even

I want someone to decompile SW Shadow Of The Empire and make an N64 version of episodes 4/5/6 and the events of the Shadow Of The Empire comic.

>>12288732
no, your argument hinges entirely on majority. the only difference is that you'll cherry pick and choose which aspect of popularity suits you more at the time. because review count doesnt suit you, you ignore it. you bring up sales when its convenient, but if another game has higher sale, it wouldnt count or matter. if another game reviews higher, it wouldnt count or matter. and on top of that, you hold zero consideration for how "at the time" factors into any of it. i could extend the gun analogy to illustrate how "scores/impressions at the time" is retarded but even having it directly in your face would probably still look like moon runes to you.
>Switch and Xbox also has it
like i said, emulation with mods.
>6 games combined into one
7-10k/6=1.17-1.7k each. still far more than goldeneye. 4/6 is still more than the retro games AND goldeneye. do you even math? regardless, all of them are newer than goldeneye, and are better quality games, so you dont really even have an argument.

now go on, answer the question: how old were you when you got your n64?

>>12288783
>no, your argument hinges entirely on majority
Nope, it doesn't, other-wise my opinion would be that Minecraft is the best game ever made, which it's not. So you're wrong, end of discussion.

>like i said, emulation with mods.
They're ports, you're wrong.

>7-10k/6=1.17-1.7k each. still far more than goldeneye. 4/6 is still more than the retro games AND goldeneye. do you even math? regardless, all of them are newer than goldeneye, and are better quality games, so you dont really even have an argument.
So you're arguing that a retro game, has more views than a retro game, and this is your argument to defeat me?

Lmao, maybe calling you a quadroon cattle-monkey was being too nice for the level of stupid you are. Go back to your spook mom and crawl back up the asshole she clearly excreted you from, since you've got shit for brains.

>now go on, answer the question: how old were you when you got your n64?
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/535/807/b38.png

>>12288783
>and are better quality games

[citation needed]

>>12288797
>other-wise my opinion would be that Minecraft is the best game ever made, which it's not.
why not? all of the "objective metrics" are there for it, no? explain.
>So you're arguing that a retro game, has more views than a retro game
you're the one that brought up views and players as some sort argument. im illustrating that newer games than it are doing better. thanks for admitting you dont have an argument and it was pointless to even bring up.
>and this is your argument to defeat me?
you defeated yourself in your first post and first response to me. the rest has been gravy.

why are you so afraid of telling your story and saying when you got your n64? really, what are you so afraid of?

>>12288812
>braincell check
>status: deficient.
seek help.

>>12283817
I will never fucking understand this. I had rogue squadron as a kid and I thought it was the most boring shit. Forward to me playing Shadows on Everdrive and it's what 100% what I would have wanted, I would have lost my shit shooting troopers down cliffs as a kid. Shadows holds up great, Rogue Squadron is fine in retrospect I guess now that I enjoy 2 and 3, but every time I boot it up I'd much rather be playing Starfox or at least the Naboo Starfighter one since those ships are way cooler, one of the few things ep 1 did right

File: Star_Wars_Obi_Wan_x-box_cover.jpg (16 KB, 264x376)

16 KB JPG

>>12283627
this too

i liked it when it came out. i beat it pretty quick on 'easy' and then struggled to beat it on higher difficulty levels but mastered it eventually. the first stage was memorable and very well done, and is actually a remake of an atari star wars game but 3D, and the rest of it had a very classic 'star wars' feel to it as others have said. in my opinion it was far superior to any star wars game from the snes era.

the best part was playing as a sort of 'han solo' type character. it was a departure from the standard luke/jedi routine. the space battles and sequences with the 'millennial falcon' type space ship were my favorites. this game was hard and it had lots of interesting secrets. the speeder bike level was nice reward for getting to the later levels in the game and the hardest boss was that horrible robot in the junkyard.

>>12289164
damn, dude, wtf? are you me? 100% agree on everything.

>>12289164
I remember cheating using a game shark for infinite life to brute force Jedi mode to see if beating it would give me an 11th level (rumor as a kid I heard) but I got filtered by the swoop bike level even with infinite lives and gave up

>>12288817
>why not? all of the "objective metrics" are there for it, no? explain.
You tell me, apparently you know better than I do.

>you're the one that brought up views and players as some sort argument. im illustrating that newer games than it are doing better. thanks for admitting you dont have an argument and it was pointless to even bring up.
Explain how. Give resources. How are they doing it better? What are they doing better? How are you measuring that? If it's based on your opinion, well let me spread my ass and fart-shit all over it, because I could not give less of a fucking spic-shit about that.

>you defeated yourself in your first post and first response to me. the rest has been gravy.
That's an awfully strange amount of cope from someone who got BTFO every single time he's responded, but please, do go on, continue gaslighting yourself you have any standing.

>why are you so afraid of telling your story and saying when you got your n64? really, what are you so afraid of?
Why are you so afraid of sharing evidence to support your claims?

>>12283627
Games don't age. Complaints at the time were just as valid as they are now. Praises for it are still just as valid.

>>12289112
this game is still fun, but my nostalgia hard carries it. wish more games used the analog stick for game mechanics, free camera has ruined gaming.

>>12289826
>You tell me
no, no, its your claim. explain it and back it up. dont pussy out now.
>apparently you know better than I do
yes, and it is consistently evident.
>How are they doing it better
>it
views and players. the metric YOU brought up. the specific topic that sentence was in reference to. your illiteracy continues to astound.
>someone who got BTFO every single time he's responded
That's an awfully strange amount of cope. no, scratch that, its not "strange" as much as "strong", because at this point it is to be expected when discussing n64.
>do go on, continue gaslighting yourself you have any standing.
not a lot of mirrors in your house, eh?
>Why are you so afraid of sharing evidence to support your claims?
i have explained the semantics many times. your ignorance and illiteracy refuses to recognize simple truth, instead substituting your own subjective biases.

regardless, you still demonstrate an immense amount of fear at simply answering how old you were when you first got your n64. why is that?

>>12283627
I get how if your 25 the QOL in this game might be difficult to enjoy, but for it's time it was amazing. I can't think of anything else like it on the market for it's era

>>12290805
>no, no, its your claim. explain it and back it up. dont pussy out now.
No, that is actually your claim. I already said I don't think it's the best ever, and you're claiming that it meets "all the criteria", which it doesn't, objectively, and even if it did, I still wouldn't call it the best video game. The best "crafting" type game, sure.

>yes, and it is consistently evident.
If it was you'd have proven me wrong by now, which you haven't.

>views and players. the metric YOU brought up. the specific topic that sentence was in reference to. your illiteracy continues to astound.
Okay, so post the metrics. I'll wait.

>That's an awfully strange amount of cope. no, scratch that, its not "strange" as much as "strong", because at this point it is to be expected when discussing n64.
Post the metrics, boy.

>not a lot of mirrors in your house, eh?
Still no metrics.

>i have explained the semantics many times. your ignorance and illiteracy refuses to recognize simple truth, instead substituting your own subjective biases.
PLEASE, just post the metrics, I'm DYING to see them!

>regardless, you still demonstrate an immense amount of fear at simply answering how old you were when you first got your n64. why is that?
I don't engage with argumentum ad personam.

>>12288783
>hey yea, you know that game everyone likes and sold millions, and has millions of fans, and has wide-spread international appeal and is considered a timeless classic? Yea, this OTHER game that achieved less than all of that is actually better!

What a stupid fucking argument.

>>12291251
its your claim.
you said "if that were true" which, it quite literally is your argument, that those metrics matter. but you say "but it isnt the best" so im asking you to explain why it isnt. back up your claim. you literacy continues to be abysmal for not understanding the simple questions asked of you.
>If it was you'd have proven me wrong by now, which you haven't.
of course i have. i did that in the very first post and every post since then. games absolutely age.
>Okay, so post the metrics. I'll wait
>>12288783
>7-10k/6=1.17-1.7k each. still far more than goldeneye. 4/6 is still more than the retro games AND goldeneye. do you even math?
your literacy is abysmal. stay in school kids.
>PLEASE, just post the metrics, I'm DYING to see them!
you dont even understand what we're talking about anymore. your idiocy, illiteracy, and ignorance, on top of your continued absolute SEETHE has clearly gotten you lost.
>I don't engage with argumentum ad personam.
lmao really rich from a seething retard blasting ad homs everywhere. for such a tough guy, thank you for proving that you're actually a coward too, lmao.

>>12291287
yes, timing is everything.
at the time, goldeneye (and the n64 as a whole) was cutting edge and the novelty of it was amazing. it was the best, most amazing thing people had seen so far. so how can these other products that came later, that have all of these improvements to make it a better product, not get better scores/impressions?

well before i answer that, lets take a look at firearms again. at the time, the musket was cutting edge and revolutionary. it changed warfare forever. it was THE weapon to have, for centuries. while people back then would rate it at the top, no intelligent soul would rate it very highly today, like 9/10 or 10/10. however, if you show a gun expert a typical action movie backlit wall of modern guns and asked him to rank them, some of those guns would be ranked significantly lower, at 5/10 or 6/10, despite being objectively better than the musket. an army outfitted with any of these guns would easily beat an army outfitted with muskets.

so why is that? how does this work?
because people are spoiled for quality. context changes. there is so much quality, that nobody is amazed, because there is always something else to turn to. what used to be amazing was only amazing given it's context and time. by having nothing to compare it to, it was obviously the best. by having nothing to innovate and improve above it, it was obviously the best. but that status quo has changed. while the properties of the item have not changed, the surrounding context has. how? why? because over time... it aged. trying to say "these reviews from 1750 rating the musket a 9/10, and these reviews from 2020 rating this gun a 7/10... i guess the musket must just be a better gun" is fundamentally retarded. "look at these scores (that you cant even view the reviews for anymore because the pages are dead, lmao), they prove that its better than this newer game" is fundamentally retarded, as well as disingenuous.

games age.

>>12291361
>its your claim
Nope, it aint. Learn to read.

>you said "if that were true" which, it quite literally is your argument, that those metrics matter. but you say "but it isnt the best" so im asking you to explain why it isnt. back up your claim. you literacy continues to be abysmal for not understanding the simple questions asked of you.
Nope, it aint, learn to read.

>of course i have. i did that in the very first post and every post since then. games absolutely age.
Nope, you didn't, learn to debate.

>your literacy is abysmal. stay in school kids.
Nope, it aint, learn to read. You still didn't post any metrics. Those were Steam chart numbers for the Master Chief collection, which doesn't separate which game is played on STEAM, 2 of which also count as retro which contradicts your argument, and also STEAM does not have Goldeneye to compare it to, so it's an entirely fruitless comparison which your dumbass seems to ignore for no other reason than you having been raised in the ghetto by a single mother who never taught you how to reasonably discuss something with another human being and just beat you with a spoon every time you disagreed. So now we just get stunted regurgitations of shit you've already said, refusing to back up your arguments, and shifting blame, lest mommy come in with the spoon again.

>and ignorance, on top of your continued absolute SEETHE has clearly gotten you lost.
You're malding so hard you're actively shitposting in other threads crying like a little baby who shit his diapies, lmao:
>>12291337

Holy shit kid, kill yourself, you pathetic sack of shit. Go play bottle flip or whatever faggoty new age game you dyke kids play these days.

>lmao really rich from a seething retard blasting ad homs everywhere. for such a tough guy, thank you for proving that you're actually a coward too, lmao.
Ad hominem is different form argumentum ad personam, which you would know if you weren't such a retarded little niglet.

Post the metrics Jamaal.

>>12291389
>at the time, goldeneye (and the n64 as a whole) was cutting edge and the novelty of it was amazing. it was the best, most amazing thing people had seen so far. so how can these other products that came later, that have all of these improvements to make it a better product, not get better scores/impressions?

No it wasn't. Quake 2 was the cutting edge. Hell, Skynet was more cutting edge.

>well before i answer that, lets take a look at firearms again. at the time, the musket was cutting edge and revolutionary. it changed warfare forever. it was THE weapon to have, for centuries. while people back then would rate it at the top, no intelligent soul would rate it very highly today, like 9/10 or 10/10. however, if you show a gun expert a typical action movie backlit wall of modern guns and asked him to rank them, some of those guns would be ranked significantly lower, at 5/10 or 6/10, despite being objectively better than the musket. an army outfitted with any of these guns would easily beat an army outfitted with muskets.

I have no idea what the hell you're going on about, but it sounds fucking stupid. What do video games have to do with defeating armies?

>because people are spoiled for quality. context changes. there is so much quality, that nobody is amazed, because there is always something else to turn to. what used to be amazing was only amazing given it's context and time.

Amazing things are irrelevant, what matters is if it's fun. That's why people still play Chess you retard. Get the fuck out of this thread and go back to
>>>/sp/

>>12285752
based

File: 1409885141750.gif (703 KB, 179x211)

703 KB GIF

>>12286037
>you btfo of him so hard he responded to you FOUR times

>>12285713
The only time this is remotely true is when games rely on graphics and spectacle over gameplay. Far Cry would be a good example.

But games with solid gameplay od not age.

File: 1440726221213.jpg (109 KB, 540x625)

109 KB JPG

>>12285810
>this opinion frightens the zoomer

>>12291398
>You still didn't post any metrics.
you dont seem to understand what the term "metric" even means in this discussion, nor do you understand how to communicate what you are actually asking for properly. again, PROVING that your literacy is abysmal.
>which doesn't separate which game is played on STEAM
irrelevant because they're all newer and better than goldeneye
>2 of which also count as retro which contradicts your argument
it really doesnt, which illustrates that you dont even understand my argument. perhaps you could repeat what my claim even is, just to illustrate understanding of the terms in question.
>also STEAM does not have Goldeneye to compare it to, so it's an entirely fruitless comparison
i addressed this already. its funny that you still want to keep talking about the numbers when you've already admitted that views and players dont matter, even though you brought them up first. its very circular with you.
>You're malding so hard you're actively shitposting in other threads
take your meds, schizo. i never even opened that thread, let alone posted anything in it. its pretty evident that you are in fact the one malding and seething, and you make it apparent with every post and spook at shadows.
>I have no idea what the hell you're going on about
yes, it is very clear that your lack of literacy, lack of critical thinking skills, and willful ignorance are quite prevalent.
>Amazing things are irrelevant
and yet you keep point to review scores that are heavily influenced by feelings like that.
>what matters is if it's fun
and you can still have fun with a lesser quality product. just because the general quality is lower in standard than it used to be, doesnt mean it cant still be fun. that doesnt mean it hasnt aged and dropped in quality. i explained this already.
>That's why people still play Chess
a game that ages well? indeed. just because one game or other (like tetris) ages well doesnt mean that they all do.

>>12291460
not only have graphics improved since the n64 (and graphics are a very real aspect of all games, but only part of the whole thing to consider), but so have controls, level design, story delivery, sound, scope, and general game design. the n64 was very primitive for the 3d medium.

>>12283627
I can't wait for the pc port/recompilation/decompilation/whatever. This game is fucking awesome.

>>12291569
> but so have controls, level design, story delivery, sound, scope, and general game design.
All of that has been an inferior step backwards, what the fuck are you talking about? Modern FPS games nowadays have nowhere near the same quality level design of virtually any of the games from the 90's. They all became linear corridors, or openworld slop that takes no effort and they just spam radio towers all over the map. Control-wise, FPS games feel more sluggish and muddy than ever. It worked for the more realistic games, but every game is fucking do it and it needs to stop. It's why Indie FPS games, copying the design and style of decades older games, are dabbing all over modern games.

>>12283627
I played it last year for the first time ever and I thought it was awesome. Cope.

>>12291564
>you dont seem to understand what the term "metric" even means in this discussion
Post metrics Jamaal.

>irrelevant because they're all newer and better than goldeneye
Then how come they all have lower ratings?

>it really doesnt,
Yes, they do, and no amount of coping will erase that.
>the rest of your comment
Retarded gobblety-gook from a dumb niglet trying to jabber jaw his way out of being BTFO.

>i addressed this already.
You never brought up Goldeneye players, despite claiming that you did, blatantly lying and pretending like Goldeneye STEAM numbers are comparable, when it's not even fucking on STEAM.

>take your meds, schizo. i never even opened that thread, let alone posted anything in it
>he says, immediately abandoning the other thread as soon as he got called out
Maybe we should just call you Hoopman, lmao. That'll be your nickname. The autistic nig-nog who shitposts about old games on the retro board. Hey Hoopman, what you gonna do next? Shitpost about how Legend of Zelda sucks because people played Hoop Stick 120 years ago? Lmao

>yes, it is very clear that your lack of literacy, lack of critical thinking skills, and willful ignorance are quite prevalent.
Ooohhh, good one *golf clap*

>and yet you keep point to review scores that are heavily influenced by feelings like that.
Who gives a shit? Your feelings aren't officially endorsed, theirs are. Deal with it, I guess, or don't, and have an apoplectic shit-fit.

> i explained this
Like many things you think you've explained, you actually haven't, and you just angrily rant and shake your fist at anyone claiming old games are better, likely because you're deeply insecure about everyone shitting on new games, probably because you actually enjoy all the DEI, mindless filler, and boring gameplay. Games cannot age. They can be improved upon, become dated due to graphics and UI, and even become irrelevant, but one thing they DO NOT do, is change from 9/10's, to 5/10's.
--CONTINUED

File: Happier.jpg (11 KB, 480x360)

11 KB JPG

>>12293606
--CONTINUED

Once shipped, a game’s core design decisions - mechanics, pacing, structure, authored content - are frozen. Unlike people, it does not develop, decay, or adapt on its own. The rules do not change. The intended experience does not change. The craftsmanship embedded in the design does not change.

Graphics fidelity, UI ergonomics, and convenience features are implementation layers, not the essence of the game. A clunky UI may slow player engagement, but it does not invalidate the systems. Low-resolution textures do not negate level design, encounter design, or pacing. Outdated control schemes reflect historical constraints, not design incompetence. Calling those changes “aging” conflates accessibility with design degradation, which never occurred.

Later games can refine mechanics, streamline interfaces, and present ideas more elegantly, but improvement does not retroactively invalidate the earlier execution. Chess has not become a worse game because modern board games exist. Likewise, a mechanically sound game does not lose merit because successors iterate on its ideas.

If improvement implied degradation, then all foundational works would collapse in value, which is an absurd and retarded. As for relevance, relevance is about attention. Quality is about construction. Confusing the two is how a 9/10 becomes mislabeled a 5/10, not because it became worse, but because fewer people are willing to meet it on its own terms. For a game to fall from 9/10 to 5/10, one of the following would have to be true:

-Its mechanics no longer function (they do)

-Its design intent collapses (it doesn’t)

-Its systems contradict themselves (they haven’t changed)

None of that happens through time alone. What does happen is retrospective scoring, with people saying, “This doesn’t feel modern anymore, therefore it must be worse.” That is a presentist bias, not an evaluation of the game itself.

>>12293556
thank you for admitting and illustrating that you are objectively retarded, and proving my point that retards like you are just bitter and jaded over the silliest things.

>>12293606
>>the rest of your comment
>Retarded gobblety-gook
all you had to do for this part was actually put in plain terms exactly what you think my argument is, and what you're even asking for when you say "metrics". good job failing.

>Then how come they all have lower ratings?
see: >>12291389
>You never brought up Goldeneye players,
see: >>12288708
>its really a shame that we dont have data for goldeneye, it must be in the millions, huh?
cope with your seethe however you want, lol.
>shitposts about old games on the retro board
lmao hardly. games age, deal with it. some age better than others.
>Shitpost about how Legend of Zelda sucks because people played Hoop Stick 120 years ago?
once again proving that your literacy and comprehension are non-existent. your argument was "it was great then, it was always great", so as such, hoop stick must still be great, just as great as zelda. the point thats you either stick to your principles and agree and look retarded, or you concede that the concept of quality can change over time, and that you've simply been retarded up until now, but have now seen the truth. hilariously, you've gone for the even DUMBER third option: misunderstand everything.
>Your feelings aren't officially endorsed, theirs are
lmao
>you think you've explained, you actually haven't
see: >>12285865 and >>12286592 way back at the beginning.
>you just angrily rant and shake your fist
LMAO no, thats you having an absolute MELTDOWN, desperately trying to defend milady /vr/'s honor or whatever.
>you're deeply insecure about everyone shitting on new games
lmao, cute projection, but no. there are plenty of bad games that deserve to be shit on.
>Games cannot age
saying it again doesnt change the semantics of how the concept of quality changes over time.
>but one thing they DO NOT do, is change from 9/10's, to 5/10's
i guess to you, the musket is still a peak firearm, and people are just fucking stupid to not use them anymore.

File: best.png (756 KB, 1190x620)

756 KB PNG

>>12293636
>>12293636
>The craftsmanship embedded in the design does not change.
true, and nobody is refuting this. thats not what is changing though. what IS changing is the value and quality that it represents. the world is changing around it, and it isnt keeping up. as such, it has aged.
>Outdated control schemes reflect historical constraints, not design incompetence
vision/intent does not excuse execution.
>“aging” conflates accessibility with design degradation
lmao you really need to just come to terms with the fact that your understanding of the word "aging" in this context does not mean what you think it means. im really sorry that the dictionary doesnt explicitly outline how it is being used in this context, but you cant expect it to keep up with every colloquialism. to make matters worse, you still REFUSE to accept or understand the concept, even when it has been repeatedly and explicitly explained and illustrated to you.
>but improvement does not retroactively invalidate the earlier execution
>invalidate
no, not invalidate, but dwarf and stand above.
>a mechanically sound game
>n64. mechanically sound
LMAO
>all foundational works would collapse in value
no, not all, but it isnt hard to find examples where it does happen and why. pic related.
the same can (and does) happen to many video games. some video games hold up well though (like tetris).
>For a game to fall from 9/10 to 5/10
new things just have to be better. just because somebody 2000 years ago was really happy and proud of his straw hut and would rate it 9/10, nobody who understands modern housing would rate it as such. even though the mechanics still function, the design intent is still there, and there is no contradiction in design. your criteria is completely ignorant of what is ACTUALLY happening, even though it has been explained and illustrated to you multiple times.
(cont)

>>12294047
>>12293636
(cont)
>What does happen is retrospective scoring
correct. impressions at the time are irrelevant to the topic of aging and whether or not something holds up well. "This doesn’t feel modern anymore" is not part of that. chess doesnt "feel modern", but it still holds up. its not about "feeling modern", its about whether or not it can compete and compare to modern/current options. trying to say "well this piece of shit from 2025 exists, and its better than that, so therefor it holds up just fine is deliberately ignorant of all of other options over ALL of the years since then that DO execute better.

in many cases, improvements ARE made, and the value/quality of something older drops. popularity is irrelevant. "does it still function though?" is irrelevant. if you could show concord to somebody in 1996 and they would rate it 20/10 and shit their pants. it would stand leagues above anything else available. meanwhile, it flops in the current age for being aggressively mediocre. if you could show morbius to somebody in the 60s, they wouldnt care about so much about the story, they would be BLOWN AWAY by the visual effects and be marveled by "how did they even DO that!?".

relying on scores, which are deeply rooted in impression, is stupid. those numbers are locked to those impressions AT THE TIME. thats why people DO retroactively reevaluate things. when something is retroactively reevaluated and we notice that the score/quality goes down, we say "it didnt age well". when something's score/quality doesnt change, we say "it aged well". denying that this happens is pants on head retarded. getting hung up on the word "aged" for whatever pedantic and petty reason doesnt make it not happen. pretending that games are immune to this happening is willful ignorance, and literally "but steel is heavier than feathers" vibes.

>>12293982
Nta but not an argument

File: file.png (76 KB, 1998x412)

76 KB PNG

>>12288769
>>12292942
>Last commit 11 months ago
It's over...

>>12294323
>All of that has been an inferior step backwards
denial of objective facts isnt an argument either.

File: You.png (347 KB, 636x471)

347 KB PNG

>>12294003
>all you had to do for this part was actually put in plain terms exactly what you think my argument is, and what you're even asking for when you say "metrics". good job failing.
Nonsense argument.

>see: >>12291389
Then how come they all have lower ratings?

>see: >>12288708
You never brought up Goldeneye players.

>cope with your seethe however you want, lol.
That's what you're doing by wasting my time with these non-argument filler comments. It won't work though, Hoopman.

>games age, deal with it
Nope.

> your argument was "it was great then, it was always great", so as such, hoop stick must still be great, just as great as zelda.
You're begging the question, since Hoop Stick was never great, it was a limitation born out of abject poverty, it's a false equivalence, and a retarded one. It's just a thought-terminating cliche because you are REALLY insecure about older games being better than newer ones for whatever inane reason, Hoopman.

>you still REFUSE to accept or understand the concept,
No, I reject the concept. You're too retarded to understand that, apparently.

>no, not invalidate, but dwarf and stand above.
In some cases, not all, and in some cases, the reverse happens, where it is inferior to its predecessor. You're a retard who thinks NEW GOOD, OLD BAD, though, so I don't think discussing the nuances of this will lead anywhere.

>LMAO
Yes. Next.

>no, not all, but it isnt hard to find examples where it does happen and why
The only time this is the case is if a game does literally the exact same thing as the previous game, but it improves upon it. This is exceptionally rare, but Resident Evil Remake is one such example, and even still you have die-hards who disagree. That's not a matter of the game "aging" though, that's a matter of it being replaced.

>new things just have to be better.
No they don't. Like take you for example, you're a fucking idiot, and most certainly inferior to your parents, who are older.
--CONTINUED

>>12283627
Games don’t age. This game was a miserable disappointment to me as a kid. It might be the worst Star Wars game. Imagine if the system launched with Rogue Squadron instead.

>>12283627
I remember rage quitting trying to play that game when I was a kid. I think I got as far as some train.

SotE is ugly and too punishing, and its story is complete garbage even for a SW gaiden.

File: retro games.jpg (705 KB, 794x885)

705 KB JPG

>>12294003
>>12294047
>i guess to you, the musket is still a peak firearm, and people are just fucking stupid to not use them anymore.
Technological advancement for a thing that relies purely on its technological capability is not equivalent to a video game, which can, for all intents and purposes, be played through text on a computer form 45 years ago. Zork is still a better more interesting adventure game than a lot of modern adventure games. That has to do with its design, which still functions perfectly. You can objectively measure all of the differences and improvements in a modern firearm and compare it to a musket and objectively prove how it's better. You can only do that with a video game up to sound, performance, and graphics, which is largely just presentation.

Comparing video games to firearms is fucking retarded. Video games have specific aesthetic appeal, rules systems, challenge designs, and expressive details like story and impact. Those things cannot be objectively measured in a scientific setting like magazine size, projectile velocity, rate of fire, malfunction rate, reload speed, and accuracy can be rated, you fucking dumpster fire of a human.

You will ignore all of this though and dismiss it off-hand for the thousandth time because you have no retort that makes sense other than just saying "lmao".

>>12294047
>what IS changing is the value and quality that it represents. the world is changing around it, and it isnt keeping up. as such, it has aged.
WRONG
R
O
N
G

The game is not trying to keep up, nor should it. It is an artifact. Maybe you nignog zoomers aren't familiar with the concept because of live service games sharting all over the industry, but video games used to be released as finished products, and then the developer moved on and made something else, instead of catering to it as some forever project.

>>12294525
>Then how come they all have lower ratings?
read the post.
>You never brought up Goldeneye players.
read the post.

>since Hoop Stick was never great, it was a limitation born out of abject poverty
and the n64 was never really great either. it was primitive and extremely limited in the medium.
>No, I reject the concept.
willful ignorance then. no different than denying 1+1=2.
>who thinks NEW GOOD, OLD BAD
if thats what you got from my statements, then you once again prove that your literacy is abysmal. also, it really just further shows your own insecurity where you think "all" old games are being "attacked", in addition to your previous statements about how all modern games/standards are lesser than before. you're projecting brighter than the bat signal here.
>The only time this is the case is if a game does literally the exact same thing as the previous game
imposing false restrictions doesnt change the truth. "a game has to do literally the EXACT same things, like a 1:1 remake, for it to count". i understand that you're terrified of admitting the truth for some reason, but now you're just being silly in addition to the seethe.
>No they don't
for a game to fall from 9.5/10 to a 5/10, yes, new things just have to be that much better, in such a way where playing the older thing is noticeably deficient. by all means, overlook the deficiencies and enjoy it, theres no argument against that at all. but to say that the quality still holds up is pure willful ignorance.

>>12294047
>our criteria is completely ignorant of what is ACTUALLY happening, even though it has been explained and illustrated to you multiple times.
No, it isn't. Your analysis is completely leaving out the core design ethos of video games, which is entertainment at its core, and if a game from 45 years ago is just as entertaining to someone today, then it has done it's job. You can masquerade around games changing graphically, or being more accessible, but overall at the end of the day, there is nothing that changes challenge, design, and style of the game at the time, to now, meaning they DO NOT age.

>>12294048
>"This doesn’t feel modern anymore" is not part of that. chess doesnt "feel modern", but it still holds up. its not about "feeling modern", its about whether or not it can compete and compare to modern/current options.
You little retarded faggot shit, you just redefined what "holds up" means MID-fucking-argument. You went from describing how something holds up, to immediately changing it to how something outcompetes. Which is it, you bait-and-switching little fucker?

Furthermore, most games do not exist in a competitive utility market. They exist as discrete experiences. A game does not fail to “hold up” because a different game elsewhere in the design space does something better. By this logic, every non-best-in-class game ever made fails retroactively, which is a laughably stupid position to hold, since I can go and play one of those "non-best-in-class" games, and perfectly enjoy myself, proving you wrong in a heartbeat.

LASTLY, Chess itself does not outcompete really...anything. It does not outcompete modern strategy games in complexity, audiovisual feedback, variety of scenarios, or onboarding. It "holds up" because its design is solid, which is less about it "holding up" and more about it having just been a good game from the start, which is my entire point. A good game is a good game, regardless of era.

>>12294048
>in many cases, improvements ARE made, and the value/quality of something older drops. popularity is irrelevant. "does it still function though?" is irrelevant. if you could show concord to somebody in 1996 and they would rate it 20/10 and shit their pants. it would stand leagues above anything else available. meanwhile, it flops in the current age for being aggressively mediocre. if you could show morbius to somebody in the 60s, they wouldnt care about so much about the story, they would be BLOWN AWAY by the visual effects and be marveled by "how did they even DO that!?".

A caveman would be blown away by a Bic lighter. That does not make the lighter a masterpiece of design or art. It means the observer lacks reference points. If “quality” rises or falls based on how unprepared the audience is, then quality is not a property of the work at all, it’s a property of the viewer’s ignorance. That means the works are not good; they are merely temporarily impressive. If exposure causes “quality” to evaporate, then what you had was spectacle, not substance, and what we are talking about is not a game "aging", but people being momentarily impressed by new tech, which is irrelevant from the game itself as a whole. The "GAME" aspect of the video game is what matters. The "Video" part is just the medium through which it is expressed. A video game is closer to Chess than it is a car, or a gun, or any other dumb technological innovation you spout off. You can say that the impression of new technology wears off, but the game itself, IE, the design behind its entire being, does not. It is ironclad.

If quality is defined by comparison to everything that comes later, then no contemporary work can be judged until the end of history, all of today’s “great” games are only great until tomorrow, and nothing ever “holds up,” including current favorites. This is not a reasonable or even really a defensible position, pragmatically or philosophically.

>>12294048
>relying on scores, which are deeply rooted in impression, is stupid. those numbers are locked to those impressions AT THE TIME. thats why people DO retroactively reevaluate things. when something is retroactively reevaluated and we notice that the score/quality goes down, we say "it didnt age well". when something's score/quality doesnt change, we say "it aged well". denying that this happens is pants on head retarded. getting hung up on the word "aged" for whatever pedantic and petty reason doesnt make it not happen. pretending that games are immune to this happening is willful ignorance, and literally "but steel is heavier than feathers" vibes.

Yes, reviews are written at a moment in time. That does not make them unreliable or disposable. A review captures the critic’s standards, the competitive landscape, the audience literacy, and the design norms as they existed. That information is valuable data, not noise. Saying “reviews are locked to the time” is like saying “Primary sources are useless because they’re contemporary.” That would make all historical analysis impossible.

Good reviews don’t just say “this feels modern.” They discuss controls, pacing, level design, balance, feedback, and system interactions. Those observations are falsifiable and replayable. If a 1998 review says “The camera frequently fights the player in tight spaces," that claim either holds or it doesn’t regardless of the year. So reviews are not merely vibes frozen in amber. They’re claims about the artifact. That does not mean every single review is not allowed to be criticized, or 100% true and honest, as biases, misunderstandings, and new information about the game could be discovered that were not previously mentioned or understood. Reviews are the control group for the time in which the game came out, and you judge them on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they individually were dazzled by novelty or examined the core design elements.

>>12294564
>read the post.
I did, and you didn't explain it, you shit on your keyboard and called it a response. I want an actual response not your retard faggot niggery.

>read the post.
I did, and you didn't explain it, you shit on your keyboard and called it a response. I want an actual response not your retard faggot niggery.

>and the n64 was never really great either. it was primitive and extremely limited in the medium.
People criticized the N64 at the time for its excessive slowdown and awkward controller. Those were factored into a lot of the reviews at the time though, which is why so many N64 games got lower ratings compared to the other platforms the games were available on. And it was not that primitive when it came out. It had unique architecture that gave it hardware Z-buffering, perspective-correct texturing, and trilinear filtering. This is why in comparison, the PS1 had warping, jittery geometry, and the games felt very unstable.

>"a game has to do literally the EXACT same things, like a 1:1 remake, for it to count"
Uh, yea, other-wise it is not trying to achieve the same design goals...Retard?

>you're terrified of admitting the truth for some reason
Projection (a word, and now also my argument, which you've stolen from me and like to use now, apparently).

>for a game to fall from 9.5/10 to a 5/10, yes, new things just have to be that much better
My hypothetical was stating is that a 9/10 game DOES NOT fall to a 5/10, in any context or scenario. Retrospective reviews my change it from a 9/10 to an 8 or 7/10, which is within the margin of error for a review, and also it being a different person reviewing it. But you are completely misunderstanding what my argument was.

But even considering that misunderstanding, no. A game does not become a 5/10 from a newer game being "much better", that is not how reviewing works, nor how video games work. If a newer game released that was better, it would be a 10/10 instead of a 9/10.

>>12294543
>pic
sensationalist shitposting and broad strokes against entire brackets is generally pretty unproductive and inaccurate. again, some games hold up better than others, and not every new game is automatically better than old ones.
>a video game, which can, for all intents and purposes, be played
continuing to function is irrelevant.
>You can only do that with a video game up to sound, performance, and graphics,
which are significant and very real components to the discussion, in which older games generally hold a significant disadvantage right from the start because of those. other components like scope, level design, objectives, difficulty, and the complexity of all of those get a bit more grey. does more truly equal better? sometimes, but not always. thats what discussion is for. "OLD GOOD, NEW BAD" is worthless and largely, laughably incorrect. denying that concepts even exist out of a crippling fear that you might have to personally reevaluate something that you formerly held in high regard and then reconcile whether you can personally handle overlooking it or not, does not serve the conversation well either.
>Those things cannot be objectively measured in a scientific setting
but they can be semantically argued. however, "old game was impactful to me during my formative years as a child (and during a major technological transition), but new games dont impact me as much since i've grown up (and am less impressed with technology as a whole) is not part of the argument. "but the scores though" is not part of that argument. denying that quality can move on and grow, denying that aging even happens is not part of that argument (you know. the only things you can provide here). you provide nothing and only exist as a colossal clown, ranting and seething endlessly. these concepts arent difficult to understand, but you simply choose wilful ignorance.
(cont)

>>12294609
(cont)
>The game is not trying to keep up
right, it has no will to "try" anything. it simply "is" what is. and what is, is falling behind.
>but video games used to
yes, we get it. you're very salty and jaded. you dont have to keep proving me right by continuing to shake fist at cloud.

>>12294613
You are big mad anon

>>12294576
>That does not make the lighter a masterpiece of design or art. It means the observer lacks reference points.
exactly. and people praising n64 games as 10/10 masterpieces also lacked reference points.
>how unprepared the audience is, then quality is not a property of the work at all
quality is not solely "impression" though.
>That means the works are not good; they are merely temporarily impressive. If exposure causes “quality” to evaporate, then what you had was spectacle, not substance
yes, that is what most of the n64 and its scores are based in.
>The "GAME" aspect of the video game is what matters. The "Video" part is just the medium through which it is expressed
and you can both games down to wire frames and flat panel assets in order to get down as "objectively" as possible, and plenty of newer examples will crush primitive shit. however, the "video" part does play a very big role in tying it all together, creating theme, purpose, direction, readability, and more, and it is a very real PART of the design that you think is so ironclad. again, intent is largely irrelevant, execution is everything. intent really only factors into discussion in regards to objectives, but execution supersedes that by determining how well they succeeded or not.
>then no contemporary work can be judged until the end of history
lol why not? we can continuously judge things and rejudge things.
>all of today’s “great” games are only great until tomorrow, and nothing ever “holds up,”
yes, yes, very cynical of you. very cute. again, some things hold up better than others, but in the long run, there is a very real chance that most things considered "great" today will seem extremely primitive and crude by future standards. such is life.
(cont)

>>12294576
>>12294589
>>12294707
(cont)
>This is not a reasonable or even really a defensible position, pragmatically or philosophically.
lmao why not? why cant we ever look back and reevaluate anything? what are you so afraid of? alternatively you think we should just "judge things now. record it and write it down. that is its score forever and ever. everyone must agree with this until the end of time." now THATS ridiculous. you come off as somebody terrified that something you hold in high regard will eventually not be held in high regard by others, and when that happens that something will have been taken away from you. or that if others dont regard it highly, that you'll have to also lower your regard for it, and in so doing have something taken from you.
>A review captures the critic’s standards
yes, once again lacking reference points when it comes to the impression part.
>Reviews are the control group for the time in which the game came out
lol, yes, "at the time".
>and you judge them on a case-by-case basis
i dont need to judge reviews on a case by case basis, i can review a game myself. and again, hilariously, the links on metacritic to those old reviews were literally all broken links. yeah, yeah, if i really wanted to, i could find some archive or other, but honestly its not that important to find.
>or examined the core design elements
of which they lack reference points, lmao. they dont know what good or bad camera controls are like. they dont know what good or bad enemy ai is like. they dont know what the potential for character controls is like. can we still use old reviews to get starting expectations and things to look out for? sure! but they are distinctly limited, and as such, largely inadmissible for retrospective analysis.

jesus christ you retards are still going?

>>12294605
>and you didn't explain it
so why is that? how does this work?
because people are spoiled for quality. context changes. there is so much quality, that nobody is amazed, because there is always something else to turn to. what used to be amazing was only amazing given it's context and time. by having nothing to compare it to, it was obviously the best. by having nothing to innovate and improve above it, it was obviously the best. but that status quo has changed. while the properties of the item have not changed, the surrounding context has. how? why? because over time... it aged. trying to say "these reviews from 1750 rating the musket a 9/10, and these reviews from 2020 rating this gun a 7/10... i guess the musket must just be a better gun" is fundamentally retarded.
keep trying. im sure you'll get it someday.
>and you didn't explain it
>its really a shame that we dont have data for goldeneye, it must be in the millions, huh?
keep trying. im sure you'll get it someday.
>And it was not that primitive when it came out.
for the 3d medium, yes it was very primitive. the ps1 too. having different novelties and problems doesnt mean that they werent primitive for the medium.
>the same design goals
its kind of funny, but also a little sad, how you're literally too stupid to insult. but this is expected of the ignorant zealot.
>Retrospective reviews my change it from a 9/10 to an 8 or 7/10, which is within the margin of error for a review
very cute system that you arbitrarily impose. a game absolutely can fall that hard given enough time and progress.
>from a newer game being "much better"
>If a newer game released
right, its not "a singular game". its a consistent increase in quality across the industry. a raising of standards. even when modern things release that fail to meet those standards very well and get a 7/10, it is still very plausible that they meet those standards better than certain retro games that when they were released got 9s.

>>12294739
didnt you read >>12287508?
>And I will NEVER stop replying.
he MUST white knight for retro. its HONOR is at stake! lmao

>>12294768
You keep responding though faggot

>>12294609
>sensationalist shitposting and broad strokes against entire brackets is generally pretty unproductive and inaccurate.
Irony.

>continuing to function is irrelevant.
The argument is video games are inherently different from utility-based products where technological development are paramount. It "functioning" is proof of its value due to its function being entertainment.

>which are significant and very real components to the discussion,
They really aren't. There was a 3D craze 30 years ago with the adventure of the graphics revolution and guess what? People are shifting back to old style graphics, with games like Hollow Knight, Dusk, and the FAITH trilogy. Video games have proven that graphics and sound design are inherently a function of aesthetic, not hierarchy. Sure some games might have more "realistic" graphics, or "shiny" graphics, but those graphics are meaningless if they don't work in the direction of the game's tone, style, and intent. We have Atari 5200-esque graphical games making waves because in all honesty, graphics are almost entirely meaningless. Not entirely, but almost.

>. "OLD GOOD, NEW BAD" is worthless and largely, laughably incorrect.
That's not my argument. My argument is that any game that releases, has a static value that does not change based on culture, history, or trends. The game design behind it is what matters. Live Service games change this slightly, but only specifically for games which are live service, and do not make up the majority of the industry, or published games.

> denying that concepts even exist out of a crippling fear that you might have to personally reevaluate something
Most of the old games I've played, I played when I was a teenager or older, since I had a limited selection as a kid, so that argument is irrelevant. What I've found is that old games I had no experience with, that I played for the first time as a 30 year old, were more enjoyable than games I've played in more recent years.

>>12294609
>"old game was impactful to me during my formative years as a child (and during a major technological transition),
Never argued that. In fact, the premise of your thread is flawed, since Shadows of the Empire was heavily criticized when it released. I personally think it's a fun but flawed game and I certainly don't hold it above something like Fallen Order.

> you provide nothing and only exist as a colossal clown, ranting and seething endlessly. these concepts arent difficult to understand, but you simply choose wilful ignorance.
Ad hominem. *throws your argument in the trash* It's as easy to argue against that point as doing that right there.

>>12294613
>right, it has no will to "try" anything. it simply "is" what is. and what is, is falling behind.
It's not falling behind anything, since it's not racing to catch up. The intended purpose and challenge of it was made when it released. You seem to fall under the flawed belief that video games are all racing to reach the pinnacle of the "perfect game", which I don't believe exists. Maybe 30,000 years in the future when we have quantum AI supercomputers that can generate endless content with seamless awareness and contextual understanding, which can automatically switch styles, tones, genres, and art styles at the snap of a finger, that might be achieved, but as it stands that is science fiction, so irrelevant.

>yes, we get it. you're very salty and jaded. you dont have to keep proving me right by continuing to shake fist at cloud.
Not at all. You seem to be though, since you dismiss old games by calling them Hoop Stick, Hoopman.

>>12294707
>people praising n64 games as 10/10 masterpieces also lacked reference points
Depends on why they were claiming them as 10/10's, and there are actually very few games for the N64 that were repeatedly rated 10/10.

>yes, that is what most of the n64 and its scores are based in.
Lmao, first you say that the N64 was primitive at the time of its release, and now you're saying that it was "all spectacle and zero substance", so which is it? Was the console a premiere technological marvel that wowed audiences, or was it primitive outdated tech by the time it released? You seem to just sway your argument to whatever counters what I say without regarding honesty, facts, or even your own posting history.

>and plenty of newer examples will crush primitive shit.
You call it primitive, but if there are examples of those games crushing new games, then which one is really primitive? If a new game with the newest technology can't end up being more fun than a game from 40 years ago, then it's that new game which is primitive, calcified, fossilized, dogshit. This is all irrelevant though since you seem to be presuming that games apparently are all amazing when they release and then falter later on due to technology, but that's not my argument. A game that is shit when it releases will stay shit. Developers might patch it to make it work better, but those are exceptions, not the rule.

>lol why not? we can continuously judge things and rejudge things.
Because by your own admission, everything is shit that we just don't understand it as being shit until NEW THING arrives. Your very argument presupposes everyone is clueless about quality until NEW THING, so we cannot accurately judge anything and all reviews and analysis is meaningless, including this discussion, because those new games you're touting, will invariably be considered shit (under your logic). My argument denies that logic. A good game releasing now, stays a good game.

>>12294707
>some things hold up better than others, but in the long run, there is a very real chance that most things considered "great" today will seem extremely primitive and crude by future standards. such is life.
Only if you look at it from a technological utilitarian nature, which is not what video games are. Video games are a medium of entertainment and expression. That entertainment, if enjoyed by previous generations, can be enjoyed now.

The hoop-and-stick trope relies on the idea that it was broadly enjoyed, culturally central, meaningfully comparable to modern entertainment, then “outgrown” as people became more sophisticated. None of that is true. Not a lick of it. It was a cheap momentary diversion, often improvised and not actually "purchased" and I don't think there is a single documented claim that it was a preferred pastime. It existed because it required no resources to achieve and served as a distraction. Like people throwing tires off bridges in the midwest, or kids whipping rocks at each other. Video games are designed, have an audience retention, are purchased for a relatively large sum as far as entertainment goes, and have a unique aesthetic appeal. The reason hoop stick disappeared is because manufacturing made toys and dolls affordable for the poverty stricken. No one was clamoring for hoop stick to make a return 40 years later. People ARE clamoring for a return of games from decades ago.

This is a deathblow to the central crux of your argument due to the fact that game design does not "improve", it merely changes. That change can be good, or bad, accepted, or rejected. Right now we are seeing major rejections of modern game design, pointing to the fact that what you are claiming is "advancement" and "improvement" is actually the opposite.

>>12286656
im gay tho

>>12294759
>there is so much quality, that nobody is amazed, because there is always something else to turn to
That's a poor argument. People can still be amazed by a game, it doesn't matter if there is more choice.

>what used to be amazing was only amazing given it's context and time. by having nothing to compare it to, it was obviously the best.
False comparison. We had thousands of games to compare things to even in the 90's. Secondly, do you genuinely believe that people said bad games were good because they "didn't have anything else to compare it to"? I played Superman 64 as a kid and even back then I knew it was dogshit, even when I personally had extremely limited exposure to 3D action adventure games. I didn't need to have played Soul Reaver or Batman Arkham City to know it sucked. It simply wasn't fun to play. Which is another collapse of another crux of your argument, this idea that we seemingly can't know something unless we have a comparison. If you never give a newborn breastmilk do you think it's going to be indifferent to it, or is it going to starve to death? Some things simply are, and fun games are simply fun, regardless of context or comparison.

>trying to say "these reviews from 1750 rating the musket a 9/10, and these reviews from 2020 rating this gun a 7/10... i guess the musket must just be a better gun" is fundamentally retarded.
Already called out this illogical line of thinking. Completely irrelevant comparison that makes no sense.

>im sure you'll get it someday.
Well I know for a fact you never will.

>for the 3d medium, yes it was very primitive. the ps1 too
For the time, it was amazing. But even still, you had games getting poor reviews...Almost like reviewers saw through the graphics and rated games mostly appropriately to how fun they were rather than how good they looked.

>very cute system that you arbitrarily impose. a game absolutely can fall that hard given enough time and progress.
I didn't arbitrarily impose that.

>>12294759
>right, its not "a singular game". its a consistent increase in quality across the industry. a raising of standards. even when modern things release that fail to meet those standards very well and get a 7/10, it is still very plausible that they meet those standards better than certain retro games that when they were released got 9s.
Except it isn't a consistent increase in quality. Bad games release all the time. An exceptionally stupid argument.

>it is still very plausible that they meet those standards better than certain retro games that when they were released got 9s.
Depends on why it was given a lower rating. The core of a game could be good enough that it is more fun than some games with higher ratings, since general polish and presentation personal bias can shift a game review-wise, but your argument that a modern game inherently having a higher quality threshold is both laughable and objectively untrue. Games are released in unfinished states nowadays. Cyberpunk had to go through years of patches in order to be even an 8/10. I would say nowadays, games are less finished products than games in the 90's were, where developers expect players to beta test for them.

But ignoring all of that, even if the standard release quality was the same, I would still disagree, since entertainment value is what matters, and if an old game is more fun than a modern game, that's that. Nothing to argue, it simply just is, and there's nothing you will say to change my mind, since it's my mind choosing it, not yours.

>>12294768
>he MUST white knight for retro. its HONOR is at stake! lmao
It's not honor, it's about educating an autistic faggot zoomer trying to engage in retro-revisionism to make himself and his own culture that he grew up in feel more safe and justified than the previous ones. I will fight you in the depths of this shit-heap of a website for eternity.

>>12294710
>lmao why not? why cant we ever look back and reevaluate anything? what are you so afraid of?
Projection and gaslighting. The only one afraid here is you. I'm not afraid of newer games, I play them all the time. I just finished Alien Rogue Incursion.

>alternatively you think we should just "judge things now. record it and write it down. that is its score forever and ever. everyone must agree with this until the end of time."
I'm using reviews as a cheap and convenient example. Obviously people's tastes will vary. You are the one claiming that old games aged and are no longer good. I'm calling you out on that, using said reviews, since obviously I'm going to have my own biases, so I'm using the closest thing to objective criteria that I can....Understand yet, junior, or do you need me to spoonfeed you more?

>or that if others dont regard it highly, that you'll have to also lower your regard for it, and in so doing have something taken from you.
Bizarre argument, but I guess that's what happens when you huff lysol every day. Never once said I only enjoy games with high reviews on metacritic. Just another dumb and lazy strawman argument from you.

>yes, once again lacking reference points when it comes to the impression part.
Irrelevant, they can analyze the inherent design without any comparison. People have these things called "brains" and what they do is recognize patterns and recognize audio and visual cues and general stimuli.

>lol, yes, "at the time".
No, retard, that's not how that works. They are the "control group". It's not a "flawless truth", it is a baseline reference point to work from, to gauge the general relative quality of the product.

>i dont need to judge reviews
I'm stating that if you are going to do an in-depth analysis. You can throw reviews out altogether if you like, but then don't try and argue on an objective basis how a game like Halo Reach is "better" than Goldeneye if you don't have the merits to actually prove it, dipshit.

>>12294710
>of which they lack reference points, lmao.
Again, reference points are entirely irrelevant. You can get someone who doesn't play video games and show them a good video game and there is a high chance, no matter when it came out, they will enjoy themselves. You could take an African tribal and show them Pac-Man and they will likely find it enjoyable. Ironically, you try and show them something like Baldur's Gate 3, and they might be lost. That doesn't make Baldur's Gate 3 bad though. Just like a zoomer finding Eye of the Beholder "aged" doesn't make it a bad game. It just means they are both clueless and ignorant.

>but they are distinctly limited, and as such, largely inadmissible for retrospective analysis.
Absolutely not. Not even remotely. They give insights into the designs of the game. For someone who played the game themselves, they might have a different opinion, but generally speaking, reviews can, and are, informative.

You are a very, VERY stupid person. It has been my displeasure responding to you.

>>12295353
>The argument is video games are inherently different from utility-based products
not to enough to be immune to aging, lol.
>graphics
yes, a component/aspect, not the whole, as i've previously mentioned.
>That's not my argument
meanwhile: >>12284732
>modern standards are shit
lol
>My argument is that any game that releases, has a static value that does not change based on culture, history, or trends
which is so weird how games are magically the only thing in existence to be so utterly immune to aging. its almost as if you're wrong.
>the premise of your thread
its not my thread. im not op.
>Ad hominem
oh you mean that thing you do all the time? lmao seethe and cry harder.
>it's not racing to catch up
you're right, its static. and lots of newer things that appear, appear much further ahead.
>You seem to fall under the flawed belief that video games are all racing
no, thats just your illiterate interpretation, despite being repeatedly explained otherwise.
>"perfect game", which I don't believe exists
i dont think one exists either. too many variables and things that dont truly compare to each other. however, its usually pretty easy to recognize quality and whether one thing is better than another, and when one thing ages so much that it consistently is lacking compared to others.
>since you dismiss old games
not at all. when did i do that? some of my favorite games and games i hold in high regard that have aged well are old games. older even than the n64.

>>12295389
>Depends on why they were claiming them as 10/10's
no, it really doesnt. and whether its 10/10 or any other score, the problem is the same: they lacked the reference points that we have now, both subjectively and objectively/mechanically.
>first you say that the N64 was primitive at the time of its release, and now you're saying that it was "all spectacle and zero substance", so which is it?
the fact that you cant understand how that could possibly both be truth, or recognize it for the simple truth it is, speaks volumes.
>Was the console a premiere technological marvel that wowed audiences
yes. much like the musket or the ford model T.
>primitive outdated tech by the time it released
what a retarded sentence. it is primitive in the 3d medium because so much progress has been made beyond it. its the fact that time and progress have marched on that make it primitive. fucking stone tools were a premiere technological marvel that wowed audiences at the time. what a complete lack of understanding you display.
>You call it primitive, but if there are examples of those games crushing new games, then which one is really primitive
>i cant understand the difference between "primitive" and "bad"
utterly pathetic literacy.
>being more fun
trying to quantify fun rarely leads anywhere.
>games apparently are all amazing when they release
not all. plenty of games release as utter dogshit. concord, E.T., and superman64 come to mind.
>then falter later on due to technology
some do, some dont. some hold up better, and usually due to simpler scope and objective, like tetris.
>Because by your own admission, everything is shit
please point out where i said that.
>we just don't understand it as being shit until NEW THING arrives
sometimes new quality arrives that outclasses and dwarfs the old thing. sure the old thing still functions, but comparatively the quality is not up to standards. as such, it can be considered lower quality and "aged".
(cont)

>>12295421
(cont)
>Your very argument presupposes everyone is clueless about quality until NEW THING
continuing to illustrate that you dont understand the argument at all due to poor literacy.
>so we cannot accurately judge anything
you seem to think that things have some sort of inherent static quality that we just have to discover, and once discovered, that value will remain forever, immune to progress, context, or even social change. under that assumption, you think im trying to say that people cant discover that value until later, so trying to do so now is "meaningless". what a complete joke. your very concept of "value" and "quality" is what is inherently flawed and creating this cognitive dissonance for you.
>>12295421
>That entertainment, if enjoyed by previous generations, can be enjoyed now.
once again you boil down to "it functions" and "fun can happen". if thats how you view video games, fine. every video game is great, because somebody somewhere can find it fun. but when adults are talking about actual analysis and complexity, its pretty useless to chime in with "but fun though".
>a cheap momentary diversion
lmao what do you think games even are? putting video games on a pedestal compared to any other form of entertainment or technology is so fucking funny. you'll so easily write off somebody else's fun just to champion video games as something inherently superior., hoopstick, jacks, marbles, pogs, jumprope, none of that can compete or compare to you. what a narcissist.
>People ARE clamoring for a return of games from decades ago.
jaded tards like you with no standards that simply claim "old good, new bad"? yeah i know.
>Right now we are seeing major rejections of modern game design,
lmao cherry picking business models and social /pol/ shit is not the entirety of modern gaming. AAA is not the entirety of modern gaming. whatever salty issue you have with "modern games" does not apply to everything or everything over the past 25 years.

>>12295453
>We had thousands of games to compare things to even in the 90's.
tell me more about the thousands of 3d games to compare to in 1998.
>do you genuinely believe that people said bad games were good
yes, people praise slop all the time. take runescape for example.
>another crux of your argument, this idea that we seemingly can't know something unless we have a comparison.
no, the false part here is your assumption that there is something inherent to know, and that im claiming that people of the past were "mistaken". good job once again failing to understand simple concepts like "retrospect".
>>12295480
>Except it isn't a consistent increase in quality. Bad games release all the time.
trying to visualize the progression of quality as something linear, and then arguing that bad things that fail to meet quality standards somehow prevents the concept of raised standards is hilarious. you're missing the forest for the trees, quite literally.
>your argument that a modern game inherently having a higher quality
>inherently
you still seem to understand nothing.
>muh fun
nobody is trying to take away your fun or say that things cant be found fun.
>educating
you have clearly illustrated repeatedly that the one requiring education is you. consistently failing to even understand what is being said to you, on top of rejecting simple concepts in lieu of bizarre preconceived notions that video games stand on a pedestal of human achievement, immune to retrospect, context, or progress aging them.
>zoomer
the fact that you still think im a zoomer is hilarious. you've been so conditioned by "us vs them" propaganda (as you've repeatedly displayed here) that you absolutely MUST find a scapegoat to point fingers at.

>>12295586
>Projection and gaslighting
answer the question. why cant we ever look back and reevaluate anything?
>The only one afraid here is you
no, you've consistently displayed cowardice in refusing to answer how old you were when you first got an n64.
>I'm not afraid of newer games, I play them all the time. I just finished Alien Rogue Incursion
and im sure you feel like a big boy for that. good for you.
>I'm calling you out on that, using said reviews
>you know, things that are old and biased
incredible strategy. its so funny that you thought that made sense.
>reviews are objective, or at least the closest thing to objective
what a colorful, delusional world you live in.
>Never once said I only enjoy games with high reviews on metacritic
and never did i imply that. my statement was that you operate as though you feel that diminishing score in any capacity for any game would take something from you. it could be 9 down to 8, it could be 7 down to 6, it could be 9 down to 5. you're extremely defensive on a personal level here.
>they are the "control group"
you clearly dont understand what a "control group" even is.
>if you don't have the merits to actually prove it
please explain what you mean by "have the merits to prove it". what "merits"? what more is there than "i played both"? please elaborate on this.
>They give insights into the designs of the games
and what exactly does this matter when you can literally just play the game for yourself? journos are experts now? lmao.
>It has been my displeasure responding to you.
yes, the illiterate and willfully ignorant tend to have a bad time when faced with facts that go against their preconceived nonsense. when all that matters to you is "fun", the more complex topics tend to get in the way of that. your continuous seething has been well noticed. thank you for displaying so repeatedly how foolish and misunderstanding you are.

Cool slap fight retards lol

>>12295805
>not enough to be immune to aging, lol.
That’s an assertion, not an argument. You never define what “aging” is, what property decays, or how it decays. You just say "shit improves".

>yes, a component/aspect, not the whole, as i've previously mentioned.
Then you’ve already conceded the point. If graphics are only one component, degradation in that component cannot justify claiming the entire game lost value.

>meanwhile: >>12284732
Yea, that's not my post, retard.

>modern standards are shit
>lol
Some of them are, yea. Selling games piece-meal, having customers act as beta testers where they patch the game constantly for years? That's a dogshit standard.

>which is so weird how games are magically the only thing in existence to be so utterly immune to aging
Never said it was. Board games, music, and film also do not age. Cope harder.

>it's static
Thank you! At least you truly see!

>no, thats just your illiterate interpretation,
That's not what illiterate means, but okay.

>however, its usually pretty easy to recognize quality and whether one thing is better than another
Not always. Sometimes some games are equal. I fail to see how this statement contradicts anything I've said. A game being old or new does not determine its quality. Its gameplay does.

>and when one thing ages so much that it consistently is lacking compared to others.
It's not lacking in anything; it was specifically designed for a specific purpose that it was designed to meet. You could say that games designed purely for multiplayer "age", because their purpose diminishes as players begin to stop playing it, effectively killing the game, although age wouldn't be the right word for it.

>>12295936
>no, it really doesnt.
Yes, it really does. A reviewer claiming a game is 10/10 because of how good its graphics look is definitely a time capsule of a review. Which, might I add, is wholly different from "art style".

>they lacked the reference points that we have now, both subjectively and objectively/mechanically.
No they didn't. They didn't need any. Everything in the game was provided for them. Nobody cares if Cunt-scratch McBoogerballs 500 released in 2020, that doesn't change the gameplay of Starfox, or Ultima 4. They are self-contained. You don't need to play other games to appreciate them. You either do or you don't.

>it is primitive in the 3d medium because so much progress has been made beyond it.
Okay, so now you're jumping ahead to saying that NOW it is primitive, despite previously saying that without context and saying it was primitive when it released. Nice goalpost moving.

>what a complete lack of understanding you display.
More like what a complete lack of consistency you're displaying.

>utterly pathetic literacy.
Ironic, since it's your literacy that completely misinterpreted my post, inserting primitive to mean bad, lmao. God you are so entertainingly fucking stupid.

>trying to quantify fun rarely leads anywhere.
GOOD COMMENT BRO.

>please point out where i said that.
You implied it indirectly, since the march of time never ceases, and new technology is always around the corner, meaning every game ends up being primitive dogshit, to you. It's an inevitability.

>sometimes new quality arrives that outclasses and dwarfs the old thing
A game's intrinsic quality - its gameplay loop, balance, challenge, and joy - doesn't vanish when a sequel or competitor drops. Really nothing else to say, Hoopman.

Imagine having a multi-day shit-throwing fest over the semantics of a phrase ("aged") that has different meanings to different people.

>>12295945
>you dont understand the argument at all due to poor literacy.
You keep using that word (illiteracy), but you apparently have no idea what the fuck it means. But I'll just dismiss it just as quickly and easily as you dismissed my claim. In fact, I'll do that for every single claim you make from now on that is not assessed in-depth. No need to waste my time when you spent none yourself.

>you seem to think that things have some sort of inherent static quality that we just have to discover, and once discovered, that value will remain forever, immune to progress, context, or even social change
Yup.

>what a complete joke. your very concept of "value" and "quality" is what is inherently flawed and creating this cognitive dissonance for you.
I have zero cognitive dissonance on this topic; in fact I doubt you know what that phrase means either, since you just used it completely wrong. You are, ironically, very illiterate and stupid.

>but when adults are talking about actual analysis and complexity
Tell me when the "Adults" arrive, I'd very much like to speak with them instead of you, misinterpreting and misrepresenting all my positions because you're a petty retard either incapable or unwilling to engage directly with a single one of my arguments.

>lmao what do you think games even are? putting video games on a pedestal compared to any other form of entertainment or technology is so fucking funny.
Okay Hoopman, lmao.

>you'll so easily write off somebody else's fun just to champion video games as - inherently superior.
They are.

>none of that can compete or compare to you
People still play with jacks, marbles, and jumprope though, you retarded little faggot. You're arguing in bad faith.

>lmao cherry picking
It's industry wide but continue coping.

>what a narcissist.
You just laid the foundation of your argument about products being outcompeted, you contradicting dumbass.

>whatever salty issue you have with "modern games"
Strawmanning.

>>12296012
>tell me more about the thousands of 3d games to compare to in 1998.
Comprehensive databases like MobyGames catalog over 300,000 games overall, with tens of thousands released by 1998 across all platforms. However, filtering strictly for "3D" (eg, polygonal or real-time 3D environments, excluding 2D sprite-based games) yields rough estimates in the low thousands (1,000–3,000). I have no way of going in and checking each one individually, as that is beyond the level of time I have, but either way it's irrelevant, since the game is either fun or it isn't.

>yes, people praise slop all the time. take runescape for example.
Runescape is a good game.

>the false part here is your assumption that there is something inherent to know, and that im claiming that people of the past were "mistaken". good job once again failing to understand simple concepts like "retrospect".
Good job moving the goalposts yet again, Hoopman.

>trying to visualize the progression of quality as something linear, and then arguing that bad things that fail to meet quality standards somehow prevents the concept of raised standards is hilarious. you're missing the forest for the trees, quite literally.
Another completely misunderstanding of my argument. Good grief, Hoopman, did you huff some more Lysol today? The "quality standard" is whether the game is enjoyable, not if it meets the arbitrary retarded goals you've imagined in your head. That's why the Wii, which did not meet the modern standards of the 360 and PS3, out-sold both of them. You are RELENTLESSLY stupid.

>you still seem to understand nothing.
*sips coffee* And you're a dumb niglet faggot. Whoopee!

>nobody is trying to take away your fun or say that things cant be found fun.
Dismissed.

>that video games stand on a pedestal of human achievement, immune to retrospect, context, or progress aging them.
Dismissed.

>us vs them propaganda
>as he sperged out over a dozen posts asking me about when I got an N64, to scapegoat

File: 1490682453696[1].gif (2.76 MB, 796x270)

2.76 MB GIF

>>12296075
> why cant we ever look back and reevaluate anything?
Re-evaluation is different from considering something aged. Retrospective analysis, with new information or new perspectives is welcomed. Saying a game is bad or primitive because it doesn't align with modern practices or culture is fucking stupid and should be beaten down with a lead pipe. It's the kind of thinking that has people going back and vandalizing old movies, books, and tv shows by editing them and censoring them. It's cancerous faggot behavior.

>and im sure you feel like a big boy for that. good for you.
*takes a big thunder-fart in your face*

>incredible strategy. its so funny that you thought that made sense.
???? Maybe I'm not retarded enough to understand your misunderstanding, mind explaining that better to me?

>what a colorful, delusional world you live in.
Funny, considering you just invented a quote I never said. Delusional indeed. I did not call reviews "objective". I said they are the closest thing to objective. Which again, is not me calling them objective. But they certainly matter more than your opinion on the matter.

>and never did i imply that.
You literally did, you goalpost moving niglet. Hoopman, can you stay within the lanes, just for once? It's getting tiring corralling you like a blind retard.

>you clearly dont understand what a "control group" even is.
Funny, considering you're saying that because you clearly have no idea what that is.

>please elaborate on this.
You playing a game is not a merit. Find me criteria that is not your anecdotal experience.

>your ending diaper-shit diatribe
A-bloo bloo.

It's amazing how little you actually say in your response posts. Of course, what else can I expect from someone who doesn't even know how to use the Shift key?

>>12296227
>You never define what “aging” is
illiteracy AND short term memory, wow.
>decay
never said that the product decays, just the quality in context.
>degradation in that component cannot justify claiming the entire game lost value
sure it does. its not responsible for ALL of the points, but it is responsible for some of them.
>Selling games piece-meal, having customers act as beta testers where they patch the game constantly for years
you're complaining about a process (valid complaint though), not a finished product. its not the same thing.
>Board games, music, and film also do not age.
LMAO, man ignorance truly is bliss, eh? its nice that everything is truly wonderful for you. unfortunately the semantics of reality dont match your delusion, no matter how much you wish it or find fun/entertainment from things.
>That's not what illiterate means, but okay.
yes, your illiteracy has led you to misunderstand very simple and clear concepts.
>It's not lacking in anything
simple denial of objective and self evident truth is not an argument. this sort of blatant and willful ignorance of the simplest and most obvious nature is what makes you an absolute clown.
>a time capsule of a review
which is irrelevant when retrospectively determining how well something holds up and is executed.
>You don't need to play other games to appreciate them. You either do or you don't.
whether or not you can still have fun with them (or "appreciate" them) is not, and has never really been, part of this topic. if thats all a product's worth is to you, then good for you. thats not what other people are talking about.
(cont)

>>12295945
>that value will remain forever, immune to progress, context, or even social change.
>or even social change
Ah yes, George Floyd overdosed on Fentanyl and a bunch of nigger riots happened, guess Adventure for the Atari 2600 is shit now!

>>12296248
(cont)
>what a complete lack of consistency you're displaying.
i have been exceedingly consistent. you're the one that doesnt even understand what "primitive", "quality", or "age" mean. your own illiteracy and ignorance leads to further misunderstand and misconstruing things to be "inconsistent", lmao. the proof is all written right there for all to read. falling in the mud and then trying to deny it happened when we can all plainly see how covered in mud you are is pathetic.
>You implied it indirectly
once again your illiteracy rears its ugly head.
>new technology is always around the corner, meaning every game ends up being primitive dogshit, to you. It's an inevitability.
it is extremely likely that eventually, given enough time, all video games as we know them will be quite outdated, yes. some will certainly hold up longer than others though. but that definitely does not mean than everything "IS shit", but that things will "become shitTY" or at the very least "shittIER". again, your illiteracy and laughable preconceived notion that things have an inherent and permanent value has led you astray.
>doesn't vanish
who said anything about vanishing? its just outclassed and dwarfed.

>>12296248
>You keep using that word (illiteracy), but you apparently have no idea what the fuck it means.
it means that you lack the skills necessary to understand what the words in front of you are conveying. in your attempt to decipher them, you make mistakes and arrive as incorrect conclusions. its easy to dismiss a claim when it is so irrelevantly wrong.
>Yup.
and as you can see, my literacy has ascertained your claim. but thank you for confirming that you are in fact retarded enough to believe that.
>I have zero cognitive dissonance on this topic
no, you're just confidently wrong and incredibly defensive when faced with facts. lol
>misinterpreting and misrepresenting all my positions
except you've literally agreed when i reiterate them. the one who consistently misses what is being said to him is you. falling in the mud and denying it only makes you a clown. the words are all self evident above.
>They are.
lmao
>People still play with
"still functions" or "still gets used" is not an argument.
>people
and then the children grow, finding new and better things, leaving the old things behind. (or autists fixate, lol)
>3 points of autism
keep seething
>>12296306
poofy collars and pointy shoes are no longer quality fashion due to social change. but im sure such a comparison and example dont matter to somebody as brainrotted as you that sees the term "social change" and immediately jumps to irrelevant /pol/ shit

File: 1443918428262.jpg (65 KB, 680x509)

65 KB JPG

>>12296259
>Runescape is a good game.

>>12296304
>illiteracy AND short term memory, wow.
Mmmm.

>never said that the product decays, just the quality in context.
Which you have consistently insinuated is the overall product itself. Nice goalpost moving.

>but it is responsible for some of them.
Yes, the points that are largely superficial and not intrinsic to the core factors that makes the game enjoyable. Similar to how a movie is still just as enjoyable at 480p as it is in 1080p.

>you're complaining about a process -- not a finished product.
If they released it for sale at full retail price, then it should already be a finished product. I could also mention always-online DRM, the fact every game is graphically designed around having TAA so now my screen either looks like it's smeared with ass grease, or it looks like a broken pixelated mess.

>its nice that everything is truly wonderful for you. unfortunately the semantics of reality dont match your delusion, no matter how much you wish it or find fun/entertainment from things.
So I debunked your claim that was a central focal point of your argument, and your response is to just...Rant rhetorically? That's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off...

>yes, your illiteracy has led you to misunderstand very simple and clear concepts.
Mmmm

>simple denial of objective and self evident truth is not an argument
Oh. Okay. So I guess that means you don't have an argument anymore.

>which is irrelevant when retrospectively determining how well something holds up and is executed.
You're just fucking with me at this point. You have to be. There's no way someone can move the goalposts this fucking often and be this oblivious, unless they are A) Mentally Retarded in the legal sense, or B) trolling me.

>whether or not you can still have fun with them (or "appreciate" them) is not, and has never really been, part of this topic.
See my above comment.

>>12296308
>i have been exceedingly consistent.
No, you haven't. You've constantly misrepresented my arguments, artificially manufactured fake quotes to base your strawman assertions on, and have moved the goalposts almost every single comment.

>you're the one that doesnt even understand what "primitive", "quality", or "age" mean
Dismissed.

>your own illiteracy and ignorance leads to further misunderstand and misconstruing things to be "inconsistent"
Dismissed.

> the proof is all written right there for all to read. falling in the mud and then trying to deny it happened when we can all plainly see how covered in mud you are is pathetic.
You're a feisty little projectionist aren't you?

>once again your illiteracy rears its ugly head.
Once again, using a word you don't understand to cover for an argument you're unable to make.

>it is extremely likely that eventually, given enough time, all video games as we know them will be quite outdated, yes
Nope, because they don't age.

>some will certainly hold up longer than others though. but that definitely does not mean than everything "IS shit", but that things will "become shitTY" or at the very least "shittIER". again, your illiteracy and laughable preconceived notion that things have an inherent and permanent value has led you astray.
Well, no, according to your logic things don't "become" shitty, they always were shitty and then the greater contextual awareness made you aware of just how shitty it was. For your comparison, someone would be fine with eating literal shit, until someone gives them meat to eat. That "meat" is the ever-burgeoning "tomorrow game", always new, always shiny, always inherently better for vague reasons like "technology" and "standards" and "society".

>its just outclassed and dwarfed.
Nah.

>>12296313
>it means that you lack the skills necessary to understand what the words in front of you are conveying. in your attempt to decipher them, you make mistakes and arrive as incorrect conclusions. its easy to dismiss a claim when it is so irrelevantly wrong.
Yea, that's you.

>my literacy has ascertained your claim
Claiming superior literacy while misusing ascertain by accompanying it with the wrong subject is…an interesting choice. Literacy (the ability to read and write) does not ascertain things. A person ascertains; literacy enables comprehension. Clearly that razor sharp wit of yours cut your brain stem in half.

>no, you're just confidently wrong and incredibly defensive when faced with facts. lol
Oh, really? Do tell me, I enjoy reading other people's attempts at gaslighting me.

>except you've literally agreed when i reiterate them. the one who consistently misses what is being said to him is you. falling in the mud and denying it only makes you a clown. the words are all self evident above.
I consistently agree with what you've stated, and yet in this same post, you say I lack the necessary words to understand what they are conveying, and that I am confidently wrong. So I guess what you're telling me is that you're wrong then? That's a round about way of admitting it finally, but I'll take it.

>lmao
Lol even!

>"still functions" or "still gets used" is not an argument.
>I'm using bad examples because I like to argue in bad faith with zero comprehension of my subject

>and then the children grow, finding new and better things, leaving the old things behind. (or autists fixate, lol)
Cool, a poisoning the well fallacy. And here I was thinking you were just going to be moving the goalposts and strawmanning for the entire discussion.

>keep seething
You're already doing that enough for both of us, Hoopman, especially since you were too embarrassed to actually quote me properly when responding with that cringe cope.

>>12296259
>Good job moving the goalposts yet again
i have moved nothing. you're the one that cant understand simple concepts like retrospect or age.
>fun = quality
>followed immediately by fun + sales > quality
you're literally too stupid to insult, lmao.
>to scapegoat
wrong guess. not my intention behind the question at all. but for how easily you can just "dismiss" things, you sure are afraid of answering, regardless of what i might respond with. its very telling.
>Re-evaluation is different from considering something aged
thats literally how we determine if something has aged or not, holy shit lmao. the amount of times you say such wrong things so confidently should be studied.
>primitive because it doesn't align
its not about "aligning". its primitive because massive advancements have been made. but thanks again for yet another example of how you dont even understand the terms and words being used.
>mind explaining that better to me
sure, i'll explain the layers to your failure. 1) you think reviews are objective (or close to it, lol). they arent. they carry their own biases. 2) your misunderstanding that my claim was about all old games. 3) to refute the claim "is no longer (as) good" you use something that simply illustrates that it was good at one point. 4) you thought this was a good idea, because you have a notion that things have an inherent and immutable quality that is unaffected by time or anything. so you failed on 4 different levels and still think that "calls me out".
>But they certainly matter more than your opinion on the matter.
why? they're just some dude playing and talking about it. are journos suddenly experts and better than anyone else? or is it simply because they present an opposing view to my statement?
>You literally did
link me the post then, so i can once again showcase your illiteracy.
(cont)

>>12296267
(cont)
>because you clearly have no idea what that is.
i know what a control group is. what i dont know is how a "control group" is relevant to this topic or how old reviewers classify as a "control group". "control group" and "first available data set" are not the same thing. they arent even a reference point to work FROM. they literally only serve as a benchmark for "how does new conclusion compare?" to.
>Find me criteria that is not your anecdotal experience.
lol, and what do you think those reviews are? what do you think your "but i had fun though" is?

File: tumblr_bd6cd747121e37f76b(...).gif (1.98 MB, 440x316)

1.98 MB GIF

It was a fun game. Almost scary as a kid

>>12296342
>i have moved nothing. you're the one that cant understand simple concepts like retrospect or age.
Already explained that, and I do understand what the concept of "Aging" means, you seem to be unable of comprehending the fact that I disagree with its application towards video games.

>followed immediately by fun + sales > quality
Strawman. Never said fun = sales. Find me the quote or shut your stupid whore fucking mouth.

>you sure are afraid of answering, regardless of what i might respond with
Dismissed.

>thats literally how we determine if something has aged or not, holy shit lmao. the amount of times you say such wrong things so confidently should be studied.
No, I just explained the difference, you refusing to acknowledge my explanation and acting dumb is not an argument. Dismissed.

> but thanks again for yet another example of how you dont even understand the terms and words being used.
Stop stealing my comments, you little cucked faggot.

>1) you think reviews are objective (or close to it, lol
AGAIN, I've explained this twice now, I did NOT say reviews were objective. Jesus fucking christ, this fucking kid. And he calls me illiterate, lmao.

> 2) your misunderstanding that my claim was about all old games.
It was.
>>12296308
>all video games as we know them will be quite outdated, yes

>3) to refute the claim "is no longer (as) good" you use something that simply illustrates that it was good at one point
No idea what this is referring to. Just a lone retarded comment on some vague notion you grabbed from my posts at one point I assume?

>4)because you have a notion that things have an immutable quality
Yes, but this probably offends you because you're black, which is also why you've inserted random qualifiers about the quality of games like "social change" for some bizarre fucking reason.

>are journos suddenly experts and better than anyone else?
Than you? Yes, absolutely.

>You literally did
Who are you quoting? Delusional schizo.

>>12296349
> they literally only serve as a benchmark for "how does new conclusion compare?" to.
You are so fucking stupid. A control group is any baseline used to contextualize or isolate a variable. It does not require an experiment, a later conclusion, or a formal scientific setup. You’re redefining ‘control group’ so narrowly that it excludes the very baseline under discussion. That’s not methodology, it’s evasion.

>lol, and what do you think those reviews are? what do you think your "but i had fun though" is?
No, you misunderstand me, find me criteria that is not YOUR anecdotal experience, because I hate you and wish you would get hit by a car.

>>12296325
>Which you have consistently insinuated is the overall product itself.
see: >>12296304
>never said that the product decays, just the quality in context.
try again. not "the product", the quality of the product. the value, the ranking, etc. another one for the illiteracy and short term memory record. its almost as if your seethe is fabricating arguments and concepts because thats what you expect it be about, due to us vs them conditioning, and its causing you to miss what is actually being said.
>Similar to how a movie is still just as enjoyable at 480p as it is in 1080p
pretty sure almost nobody would agree with that statement. like to the point where its a detriment? probably not. but im pretty sure almost everyone would easily say that 1080p is "better".
>If they released it for sale at full retail price, then it should already be a finished product.
>should
yes, and its a valid complaint, but its still a complaint on the process and not the end result.
>So I debunked your claim
you didnt debunk anything. you listed a bunch of other things that you're wrong about, lol. you're literally operating under a false notion and rejecting anything that illustrates otherwise.
>moving goal posts
im perfectly consistent. your failure to understand things is creating this false notion of inconsistency. how does an old review matter? you look at the game itself, not the review. after assessing the game, you judge it. the only time that review comes back up is "where does the new score fall in relation to the old one?". its really a non-factor.
>fun
very small aspect to consider, usually in conjunction with how broad the appeal is. fun is very subjective and varies wildly, with people finding fun in even the worst things. your entire argument hinges on confirmation bias.

>>12296330
>You've constantly misrepresented my arguments
you've pretty consistently confirmed when i restate them, with only a few exceptions.
>fake quotes
lmao summarizing is libel now! oh no, he's being attacked!
>moved goalposts
keep coping.
>dismissed x2
i accept your concession that you are unable to use or understand these terms properly. your own words and actions are self evident.
>using a word you don't understand
when somebody reads something that is very plain and explicit, and comes to the wrong conclusion, is that not illiteracy? failure to understand words? trying to claim that i am using this term incorrectly is YOU moving goal posts, lmao. now THATS projection.
>Nope, because they don't age.
you bet, patrick star, lmao.
>Well, no, according to your logic things don't "become" shitty, they always were shitty
once again confirming that you are unable to read and understand what my logic even is. thank you for further demonstrating your illiteracy.

Is this thread AI generated? What the fuck is up with the massive greentext and answers back and forth, neither of you reads like a human

>>12283627
The game is perfect, it just needed MORE, more and more levels, too short.

>>12296341
>literacy
attempting to mince words and grammar is pretty funny from somebody that so consistently fails to understand the words in front of him, lol.
>Oh, really? Do tell me
i have. consistently. check above.
>I consistently agree with what you've stated, and yet in this same post, you say I lack the necessary words to understand what they are conveying
you have agreed multiple times when i restate your own claims that what i said was accurate. that is a fact.
you have failed tremendously multiple times in understanding my claims due to poor literacy. that is a fact.
you have stated many objectively false claims (some of which due to poor literacy and understandings). that is a fact.
i recommend taking your mental gymnastics routine to the special olympics.
>fallacy
no, im pretty sure most kids that play with that stuff end up moving on to higher quality entertainment. new kids continuing to use them is irrelevant, because they grow up and let go too.

>>12296364
>I do understand what the concept of "Aging" means
if you now know, it took you long enough. you spent too much time stuck on the product itself decaying or whatever.
>I disagree with its application towards video games.
very cute. no matter how confident you are in that, you're still wrong though. "disagreeing" with something doesnt make it not real.
>Never said fun = sales
neither did i :), but i'll be generous and pretend it was a type and you meant +
>Find me the quote
k, lets do it step by step.
>The "quality standard" is whether the game is enjoyable
so you're saying "fun = quality". fun is what the REAL quality is.
then you say
>That's why the Wii
obviously representing "fun".
>which did not meet the modern standards of the 360 and PS3
360 and ps3 representing upper technological quality and capability
>out-sold both of them
as such, fun is the "real" quality, and sales is the "proof" that its more important than any other notion of "quality".
thats what you were saying. see? i have literacy and can understand the claims that you make. but thats also assuming your post right here made a typo. however, you do pretty much say "people bought it because it was fun", so yes, you actually did say fun = sales, lol.
>No, I just explained the difference
no you rambled about irrelevant shit that you're salty about. when people say something has aged, its because they have reevaluated it. thats literally how it works. are you too stupid to even understand that much? of course im going to dismiss any nonsense that doesnt pertain to that.
>Stop stealing my comments, you little cucked faggot.
keep seething. im just calling it like it is. your own posts serve as proof.
>AGAIN, I've explained this twice now, I did NOT
meanwhile you include in your quote of me the part where i said "or close to it". and that "or close to it" is what serves you to hold them on comparable ground as something objective.
(cont)

>N64 apologist vs. Zoomer
These women having a mid off

>>12296364
(cont)
>it was
no, your misunderstanding was that i am making a claim that all old game can at this point in time be considered aged. thats not what i said.
>all video games as we know them will be quite outdated, yes
conveniently leaving out "it is extremely likely that eventually, given enough time, ". its only sensible that eventually it could happen. however the notion that all "retro games" have aged and aged poorly at THIS point in time is false. dont misconstrue it.
>you use something that simply illustrates that it was good at one point
>No idea what this is referring to
you use reviews, which only illustrate that it was good at one point. "using said reviews" were your exact words. i know that you're illiterate, but keep up.
>random qualifiers about the quality of games like "social change"
you can skip the /pol/ shit. what people and cultures value changes over time. some things faster than others. concord is (was, lol) a better multiplayer game than goldeneye's multiplayer, but it utterly flopped. if people in the 90s could have played it, they would have shit their pants, but today's market just doesnt want it. what people value and consider quality changes with time.
>Who are you quoting?
>>12296267
>and never did i imply that.
>You literally did,
show me the post and line where i did.

>>12296478
>anyone criticizing anything on the n64 must be a zoomer

>>12285713
Goldeneye has one of the best campaigns of all time. Halo is worthless without multiplayer

Every 3D Mario after 64 has been a fucking letdown, especially Odyssey which isn't a good followup or a good Banjo game. BOTW is the biggest piece of dogshit immediately after the plateau. Outside of your taste being ass, you clearly don't understand the appeal of retro games, or why something like Shadows clunky controls doesn't matter in an era where every game had different controls. Mastering clunky controls is part of the game, part of the charm, part of the fun. ur gay and ur retarded

>>12296508
>old good, new bad
literal chicken nugget and mac and cheese brain.

>>12296359
I've crashed a thousand speeders into those chicken walkers

>>12296430
probably. arguing this much about some random 64 game is really bizarre. I have played this game but it’s nothing special. middle of the road imo

>Read some of these posts.
I don't understand how "aged poorly" is such a difficult concept for this guy to grasp. No one is saying the game isn't playable or unable to be enjoyed even today. When people say a game "aged poorly" they're saying that it's hard for them to find enjoyment in it because concepts from when the game was made are much harder to find merit, wonder, or joy in and tolerance for after having experienced modern gaming concepts or advancements.

I didn't grow up with Atari games, Colecovision, or Intellivision. To me those games feel like absolute ass to play, control poorly, have poor gameplay in general, and are structured poorly so it's really hard for me to find any sort of enjoyment with them. They have not "aged well" at all. I grew up with the NES, SNES, and GB and many of those games also have not "aged well", especially on the GB side of things due to its screen size and simplistic input method leading to having a much more frustrating and boring experience in a lot of these games. This doesn't mean that many games on these systems don't hold up even with changes in modernity like Pokemon or Zelda, but it also doesn't mean games like Prince of Persia or A Boy and His Blob aren't extremely clunky and feel terrible to play.

>>12283627
i honestly never rly liked this one
tho tbf i had already played the dark forces games on PC, so of course i thought console shooters were shit and they objectively WERE garbage compared to what we had for shooters on PC at the time

I like the variety this game has space battles, speed bikes, shooting, platforming. It's a nice package giving the feel of the OG trilogy. Third person controls are janky tho and takes time to learn. Fun game to play even today

>>12296407
>try again. not "the product", the quality of the product. the value, the ranking, etc. another one for the illiteracy and short term memory record. its almost as if your seethe is fabricating arguments and concepts because thats what you expect it be about, due to us vs them conditioning, and its causing you to miss what is actually being said.

You keep trying to dodge the argument by swapping nouns and hoping the confusion does the work for you. “The product” versus “the quality of the product” is not a meaningful distinction in the way you think it is. Quality is not a free-floating substance that degrades over time; it is a judgment about how well the product’s internal design satisfies certain criteria. The product is static. The design is static. What changes is the observer’s framework. Calling that “quality changing” is just rebranding shifting standards and tastes as if they were intrinsic decay.

The irony is that you’re accusing me of fabrication while doing exactly that yourself: inventing a property called “aging quality” that you cannot point to inside the work. You never identify a mechanic that stops functioning, a rule that breaks, a feedback loop that collapses. You just say “ranking changed” and treat that as proof of decay. That’s not illiteracy on my part; that’s you collapsing ontology into preference.

And the “us vs them conditioning” line is projection. I’m not defending old games as a tribe, and I’m not attacking modern ones. I play new games constantly. What I’m rejecting is your attempt to turn subjective reevaluation into an objective process. If quality truly changed, you could demonstrate it without invoking trends, culture, or comparison, you know, subjective bullshit that changes with the tide.

>>12296407
>pretty sure almost nobody would agree with that statement. like to the point where its a detriment? probably not. but im pretty sure almost everyone would easily say that 1080p is "better".

This is exactly where your argument quietly collapses, because you’re sliding from descriptive preference into normative decay and pretending they’re the same thing.

Yes, almost everyone will say 1080p is “better” than 480p. That’s not controversial. What is controversial - and what you keep failing to justify - is the leap from “people prefer a higher-resolution output” to “the lower-resolution work has lost quality.”

Resolution is a property of presentation, not of design. A movie rendered at 480p in 1998 does not become less internally coherent, less mechanically sound, or less intentionally constructed because higher resolutions later become common. The rules don’t change. The pacing doesn’t change. The feedback loops don’t change. The only thing that changes is the viewer’s reference frame. Saying “1080p is better” is a statement about human comfort and modern display expectations, not about intrinsic degradation of the work. If increased fidelity automatically reduced the quality of older works, then every artistic medium would be in permanent decay the moment a new tool was invented - which is obviously false.

Your own wording betrays this. You even hedge with “to the point where it’s a detriment? probably not.” That concession matters. If it’s not a detriment, then nothing has been lost. And if nothing has been lost, then there is no aging - only preference. You’re arguing comfort and convenience while labeling it decay.

Without loss, there is no aging. There is only comparison. And comparison is about the observer, not the object.

>>12296407
>yes, and its a valid complaint, but its still a complaint on the process and not the end result.

The problem is that you’re trying to surgically separate “process” from “end result” in a context where they are inseparable by design. In the modern retail model, the process directly defines the end result, because the product is not meaningfully complete at the point of sale. When a game is sold at full retail while knowingly unfinished, the “end result” the customer receives is an incomplete, provisional state that is explicitly contingent on future monetization. That’s the literal condition of the product being sold.

Calling this “just a complaint about the process” only works if the process has no bearing on what the consumer ends up with. That was true in older models, where development ended before sale and patches were corrective rather than foundational. It is not true now. When core content, systems, or narrative elements are deliberately withheld to be resold as DLC, the process has materially altered the final shape of the game. The end result is no longer “the game,” but “the base access tier.”

More importantly, retail pricing is not neutral. Full price carries an implicit contract: that the work is substantively complete, self-contained, and evaluated as such. If a game launches unfinished, buggy, or structurally incomplete, then the criticism is not about how it was made, but about a mismatch between price, representation, and delivered substance. That’s basic consumer logic.

You can’t defend the outcome while dismissing the method when the method is what produces the outcome. A piecemeal release strategy doesn’t just change the timeline; it changes the work itself, its cohesion, its pacing, and its integrity as a designed experience. Saying “the end result is what matters” only holds if the end result actually exists at launch.

>>12296407
>you didnt debunk anything. you listed a bunch of other things that you're wrong about, lol. you're literally operating under a false notion and rejecting anything that illustrates otherwise.

You didn’t identify a single claim I made that was “wrong,” you didn’t explain why it was wrong, and you didn’t offer a counter-framework. You just declared yourself correct and dismissed everything else as delusional, misinterpreted my arguments, manufactured quotes, and strawmanned me into oblivion. That isn’t an argument.

What you’re doing repeatedly is goalpost shifting. When one point is addressed, you don’t engage with it; you redefine the disagreement. First it’s about the “product,” then it’s about “quality,” then “value,” then “ranking,” then “process vs result.” Every time the distinction is examined, you abandon it and claim the other side “missed the point.”

You’re also leaning heavily on strawmen. You keep responding to positions that were never asserted: that reviews are useless, then they're important for retrospectives, that general consensus is unimportant, UNLESS that consensus happens to be much later in a different culture, that criticism of modern practices equals fear of new games. None of those claims were made. They’re caricatures. Then you use motte-and-bailey tactics to deride me, unsuccessfully might I add.

Then there’s the gaslighting. Instead of engaging with the substance, you tell me I’m “seething,” “fabricating arguments,” “conditioned,” or “illiterate." If my claims were truly false, you wouldn’t need to psychologize - you could just refute them.

Finally, there’s the outright dismissal. You assert that nothing was debunked while refusing to specify what remains standing. That’s not how debate works. If a claim survives, you explain why. Simply saying “you’re wrong” without engagement is not a counterargument; it’s an abdication.

>>12296407
>im perfectly consistent. your failure to understand things is creating this false notion of inconsistency. how does an old review matter? you look at the game itself, not the review. after assessing the game, you judge it. the only time that review comes back up is "where does the new score fall in relation to the old one?". its really a non-factor.

The problem isn’t my “failure to understand,” it’s that your definition of consistency only works if you ignore the implications of what you’re saying. You claim reviews are a “non-factor,” yet you still rely on them as a reference point for score movement. That is not consistency; that is instrumental use. You dismiss reviews when they challenge your claim, then quietly reintroduce them when you need a baseline to justify “aging.” You don’t get to have it both ways.

You say you “look at the game itself,” assess it, and judge it. Fine, but that judgment is still made using contemporary criteria, contemporary literacy, and contemporary expectations. That’s exactly why old reviews matter, and why I say games do not age. They document how the same static object was evaluated before those criteria shifted. Without that record, you cannot distinguish between two very different explanations: that the game was always flawed, or that standards changed around it. Your method collapses those into one and calls the result “aging,” which is an assumption, not a conclusion.

Finally, saying “just look at the game itself” does not solve the problem you think it does. There is no view from nowhere. Every assessment is filtered through a framework, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make that framework disappear - it just makes it invisible and unexamined. Reviews don’t replace judgment; they contextualize it. Without them, all you’ve demonstrated is that opinions change, not that games do.

>>12296407
>very small aspect to consider, usually in conjunction with how broad the appeal is. fun is very subjective and varies wildly, with people finding fun in even the worst things. your entire argument hinges on confirmation bias.

Calling “fun” a very small aspect of game evaluation is a fundamental mischaracterization of how games function as designed systems. Fun is not some frivolous, post-hoc emotional reaction; it is the primary outcome the mechanics are engineered to produce. While enjoyment is subjective at the individual level, games are not built blindly. Designers make intentional, structured decisions about feedback loops, challenge curves, risk–reward balance, and player agency precisely to elicit engagement and satisfaction across a target audience. That makes fun variable in degree, not arbitrary in existence.

Appealing to subjectivity here does not negate evaluative claims; it simply reframes them. We routinely evaluate subjective experiences - music, films, food - without collapsing into relativism. The fact that someone can enjoy “the worst things” does not invalidate criticism any more than someone liking a poorly written movie makes it well written. Broad appeal matters because it indicates how effectively a design communicates its intentions, not because it establishes an objective mandate.

As for confirmation bias, that accusation only holds if conclusions are drawn before examining the system. My argument does the opposite: it evaluates the mechanics as they exist and asks whether they function coherently and consistently toward their intended goals. Pointing out that some people will always find enjoyment in anything does not undermine that analysis, it sidesteps it. Dismissing structured critique by labeling it bias is not a rebuttal; it’s an evasion.

>>12296424
>you've pretty consistently confirmed when i restate them, with only a few exceptions.
No, I haven't, that's you imagining things. I've called you out on it numerous, numerous times. The fact that you cannot see that is just blind arrogance on your part, or deft trolling. The kind of trolling where you will reframe your argument when it suits you, where you will autistically argue for one specific semantical point before abandoning it and then going after another entirely minor point that you hinge everything on until it gets blown-the-fuck-out. The kind of point that you seemingly continue to gaslight yourself, or me, or both of us, into believing held any validity in the first place.

You're just wasting time at this point, either to try and get the last word in or to tire me. But I do not tire fuckstain. I am forever. I am eternity. I will always be here, to reign in your batshit stupidity, because I am not a person, I am an ideal, manifested by someone momentarily, but we are everywhere. This is /vr/, and we are in no short supply. You can keep spamming this shitty retarded statement, that "DIS GAYME HAS AGED" but it hasn't. And we will routinely make you aware of that every single chance we get to. And you will be drowned out in a sea of rebuttals and counter-arguments that prove it so.

And lastly, I love how you added "with only a few exceptions", where even in your own imagined fairytale land, you literally just admitted to still misrepresenting my arguments, lmao. Very tactful, retard. As if that, itself, doesn't prove my very point, you dumb piece of shit.

>>12296424
>lmao summarizing is libel now! oh no, he's being attacked!
No, what you’re doing isn’t “summarizing,” and pretending that’s the accusation is just another lazy deflection. I’ve pointed this out repeatedly. What you call “summaries” are selective distortions that conveniently strip away qualifiers, context, and stated premises so you can argue against a weaker, invented position. That isn’t paraphrasing for clarity; it’s rhetorical vandalism. And when that gets called out, you retreat into mockery instead of addressing the substance - because addressing it would require you to actually engage with what was said, not what you wish had been said.

The pattern is consistent: you latch onto a narrow semantic hook, argue it to death as if it’s the crux of the discussion, then abandon it the moment it stops being useful. Immediately after, you pivot to a different, smaller point and pretend that was the real issue all along. When that collapses too, you accuse the other party of “being delusional.” That’s not coherence; that’s evasive cycling. It’s arguing by exhaustion, not by merit.

And no, calling this out isn’t an emotional response or some wounded ego play. It’s pointing out that you keep reframing the debate midstream, then acting offended when people notice. You aren’t being attacked - you’re being mirrored. The reason you don’t like the reflection is because it shows how little of your argument actually survives sustained scrutiny.

At this point, the repetition is doing you no favors. You keep insisting the same mischaracterization as if volume will convert it into truth. It won’t. The core claim hasn’t changed, hasn’t been contradicted, and hasn’t been meaningfully addressed - only dodged. And every time you tack on a sarcastic “with a few exceptions,” you’re openly admitting that misrepresentation is still happening, just now with a disclaimer slapped on top like that somehow fixes it.

>>12296424
>keep coping.
Ah, the classic “keep coping”, a line so lazy it can’t even be called a rebuttal. There’s nothing to “cope” with here because I’m not invested in defending a fragile ego; I’m invested in clarity, logic, and exposing the flaws in your reasoning. Telling someone to “keep coping” is literally a refusal to engage, disguised as a victory lap. It carries no evidence, no counterargument, and no explanation, just an assertion that the other person is emotionally overwhelmed, which you have no way of knowing.

It’s especially rich coming from someone who has spent an entire thread moving goalposts, redefining terms mid-argument, and framing ordinary observations as attacks. If there’s coping happening here, it’s on your end, coping with the fact that every time you try to assert “games age” or that your semantic gymnastics hold water, the logic falls apart under examination. You can’t point to an actual flaw in my claims, so you pivot to mockery and dismissal. That’s not argumentation. That’s retreat under fire, dressed up as condescension.

Furthermore, it presumes an emotional imbalance that doesn’t exist. I am not invested in defending a fragile ego, I am dissecting a faulty position. Every point I’ve made is grounded in principle: games are static designs; quality is intrinsic to the design; peripheral aspects may change, but the system itself does not decay. “Keep coping” does nothing to address that principle. It is literally saying, “I refuse to engage with your logic, so I will instead mock you.” That’s textbook bad-faith argumentation.

>>12296424
>i accept your concession that you are unable to use or understand these terms properly. your own words and actions are self evident.
Oh, this is rich. You accept my concession…which, newsflash, doesn’t exist, because I never conceded anything. You just invented it out of thin air, slapped it on me, and then congratulated yourself for being insightful. That’s not debate, that’s hallucination with footnotes. Your “acceptance” is literally a parody of reasoning: you’ve taken the audacity of claiming someone admitted defeat and amplified it as if mere declaration equals truth.

Then you double down with “your own words and actions are self-evident.” Self-evident? That’s rich coming from the guy who redefines terms mid-argument, dances around every explicit point I make, and insists that moving goalposts is a feature, not a flaw. The only thing self-evident here is your commitment to gaslighting as argumentation. You’ve elevated the art of pretending someone said something they didn’t to the level of strategy, and now you’re sitting there smug, imagining a checkmate that exists only in your fever dream.

Let’s be clear: I haven’t failed to understand terms. You’ve failed to use them consistently, failed to define them meaningfully, and then projected your incoherence onto me while pretending you are the arbiter of literacy. You’re literally accusing someone else of incompetence while demonstrating, with every sentence, that you have no grasp of the difference between misreading, misrepresenting, and outright inventing claims.

This is the core of your style: bold, smug declarations of superiority, delivered with all the precision of a wet sock. Keep patting yourself on the back, champ, your concession exists only in your imagination, and the “self-evident” evidence is nothing more than the warped projection of your own catastrophic failure to follow logic.

>>12296424
>when somebody reads something that is very plain and explicit, and comes to the wrong conclusion, is that not illiteracy? failure to understand words? trying to claim that i am using this term incorrectly is YOU moving goal posts, lmao. now THATS projection.
You’re claiming “plain and explicit” text, yet somehow, anyone who disagrees is instantly labeled illiterate. That’s not an observation, it’s a blunt instrument of arrogance. You’re pretending that misunderstanding is proof of incompetence rather than evidence that your argument is either poorly structured, internally contradictory, or deliberately evasive.

Then you double down: “trying to claim that I am using this term incorrectly is YOU moving goal posts.” Except that’s exactly what you’re doing. You constantly redefine the terms mid-argument, pivot definitions, and then accuse anyone tracking the shifts of moving the goalposts. It’s a rhetorical sleight-of-hand: you invent flexibility for yourself while punishing anyone else for noticing inconsistencies. That’s textbook motte-and-bailey, dressed up as insult.

And let’s not gloss over the “projection” line. Accusing someone of projection while simultaneously projecting a grand narrative of illiteracy onto them is almost comical. You are literally using your perception of misunderstanding as a mirror to justify insulting others while claiming moral and intellectual superiority. That’s the core: anything that exposes the cracks in your reasoning becomes the other person’s fault.

In reality, the only thing “moving” here is your self-conception as a master logician. Every explicit claim you think is plain is layered with assumptions, implied definitions, and evasions that you refuse to acknowledge. Misreading it doesn’t prove illiteracy, it proves that the argument itself is a house of shifting walls, and you’re calling anyone who walks in “blind” for noticing it.

>>12296424
>you bet, patrick star, lmao.
Oh, brilliant. Reduce the entire discussion to a cartoon insult and call it victory. “You bet, Patrick Star, lmao”, that’s your argument? That’s your rebuttal? Congratulations, you have officially replaced substance with cheap mockery and decided that laughing at a name somehow constitutes logical engagement.

Let’s be very clear: name-calling does not refute a single point. It doesn’t address mechanics, systems, or the very premise that games do not age. It doesn’t touch gameplay, challenge, pacing, or design integrity. It’s pure empty noise, designed to signal superiority while avoiding having to actually justify anything. You’ve turned intellectual laziness into a performance, and somehow you imagine this counts as a counterargument.

Furthermore, it demonstrates exactly what I’ve been saying all along: when you have nothing of substance, the fallback is derision. You’re so unwilling, or unable, to engage with the argument that your response collapses into a meme reference. That is the intellectual equivalent of throwing a shoe at someone because you lost the debate. It adds no value, it changes nothing, and it does not disprove anything.

So yes, go ahead, “Patrick Star” yourself all you like. It doesn’t make games age. It doesn’t invalidate the logic. It only highlights that when confronted with reasoned, structured critique, your only strategy is to replace thought with ridicule. That’s not debate; it’s performance art, and it fails on every possible level.

>>12296424
>once again confirming that you are unable to read and understand what my logic even is. thank you for further demonstrating your illiteracy.
The classic “you’re illiterate” claim, delivered with all the confidence of someone who hasn’t actually engaged with a single point. Let’s unpack this. You’re accusing me of being unable to understand your logic, yet every time you do this, it’s because your logic has been intentionally obfuscated, inconsistent, or shifting midstream. You redefine terms, pivot definitions, and abandon previous claims whenever they stop serving your narrative, then act shocked when someone notices. That’s not failure to read, that’s failure to present a coherent argument.

The irony is delicious: you claim “illiteracy” while simultaneously refusing to address the substance of what’s been repeatedly laid out. You’ve literally conflated disagreement with misunderstanding, and then used that manufactured “failure” to declare victory. It’s projection at its purest: your inability to maintain internal consistency is externalized as my inability to read.

Moreover, labeling observation of contradiction as illiteracy is intellectually lazy. It’s shorthand for “I can’t defend my position, so I’ll insult the messenger instead.” Calling out flaws in reasoning, tracking goalpost shifts, and highlighting evasions does not demonstrate incompetence, it demonstrates rigorous attention to the argument, which is precisely what you’ve been avoiding.

So yes, you may continue to insult my literacy. It changes nothing about the facts: games do not age, mechanics and challenge remain static, and your repeated attempts to redefine, dodge, and mock do not invalidate this core claim. Every time you call me “illiterate,” you only reaffirm that the problem lies not with comprehension, but with your own incoherence and rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

>>12296446
>attempting to mince words and grammar is pretty funny from somebody that so consistently fails to understand the words in front of him, lol.
Let’s be precise: consistently “failing to understand the words in front of him” is your own doing. You redefine terms mid-argument, pivot definitions whenever a point is addressed, and abandon previous positions when they are inconvenient. When I track those movements and point out inconsistencies, it’s not pedantry, it’s exposing the logical instability of your claims. You cannot coherently argue one point for more than a few lines without retreating, reframing, or resorting to mockery.

Calling this “funny” does not address the substance. It’s a desperate attempt to frame intellectual rigor as humor, as if laughing at an observation somehow invalidates it. It doesn’t. It only underscores the asymmetry: I’m engaging with the logic of your statements; you’re engaging with the tone and surface-level phrasing. That is why your argument collapses under scrutiny while mine remains intact.

So yes, keep laughing at “mincing words.” It does nothing to change the fact that games do not age, mechanics and design are static, and every evasive pivot you attempt to cover your contradictions only exposes the weakness of your rhetorical game. Mockery is not rebuttal, and you are rapidly running out of anything else to offer.

>>12296446
>i have. consistently. check above.
Consistency is not an appeal to volume, it’s alignment of claims, definitions, and logic over time. You have failed to maintain any of these. Repeating “I have consistently” doesn’t make it true; it only highlights the gulf between your perception and reality. You are treating repetition as a substitute for reasoning, and it isn’t.

Stating “I have. consistently. check above.” is empty rhetoric. It pretends to be evidence while simultaneously demonstrating the very inconsistency you claim not to have, especially when I have previously quoted you, and you simply dismiss it out-of-hand, or ignore it, because you've obviously been prove wrong.

>>12296446
>you have agreed multiple times when i restate your own claims that what i said was accurate. that is a fact.
>you have failed tremendously multiple times in understanding my claims due to poor literacy. that is a fact.
>you have stated many objectively false claims (some of which due to poor literacy and understandings). that is a fact.
>i recommend taking your mental gymnastics routine to the special olympics.

Oh, this is peak delusion wrapped in faux confidence. Let’s break it down. You claim I “agreed multiple times” when you restate my points, yet every so-called “agreement” you point to is either a clarification, a correction, or a restatement of my own nuanced position, which you then misrepresent as a concession. That is not agreement; it is you reading your own narrative into the text.

Next, your claim of “failed tremendously…due to poor literacy” is hilarious because it again projects your own failures onto me. You redefine terms mid-argument, pivot definitions when they become inconvenient, and then accuse me of illiteracy when I track the shifts. The only literacy problem here is the one required to reconcile your constantly moving goalposts with reality.

Then, “you have stated many objectively false claims”, sure, if by “objectively false” you mean anything you can misinterpret or anything that doesn’t fit into your fever dream of consistency. But every claim I’ve made about games, aging, mechanics, and reviews has been grounded in principle, evidence, or logical reasoning.

Finally, the “mental gymnastics routine to the special olympics” line is pure performative mockery. It’s irrelevant, cruel, and adds nothing to the debate. It also perfectly illustrates the rhetorical strategy you’ve been using this entire thread: when substance fails, replace it with insult. Congratulations, it doesn’t win the argument, it only exposes your inability to engage with reason.

>>12296446
>no, im pretty sure most kids that play with that stuff end up moving on to higher quality entertainment. new kids continuing to use them is irrelevant, because they grow up and let go too.

Let’s poison the well right from the start: the comparison itself is garbage. Hoop stick is not a toy, it’s barely a game; it has no structured challenge, no mechanics to evaluate, no design intent beyond hitting something with a stick. To hold it up as evidence for your sweeping claim that “games age because people move on” is embarrassingly weak.

Jacks, marbles, and jump rope, on the other hand, are real toys, with rules, skill-based challenge, and social interaction. Millions of kids have played them for decades, and some still do. They didn’t “age” or become obsolete because of novelty or culture shifts; people just grew up. That is the key difference you keep wilfully ignoring: interest moving on does not equate to the object itself deteriorating or losing quality.

Furthermore, not all games are designed for children, and not all games are simple distractions like marbles or jump rope. Many games are deliberately complex, with mechanics, challenge, and systems that persist regardless of trends, fashion, or the fact that some players “move on.” Saying that people eventually stop playing a game and go to something else does not mean the game has aged or deteriorated in design, it only means the audience has shifted, either in relevance, desires, or perhaps trends.

So yes: your “children outgrow it” argument is a weak attempt to paper over the gap between simple toys and the intricate, enduring systems that games actually are. Hoop stick is irrelevant. The enduring appeal of jacks, marbles, and jump rope already disproves your point. And your analogy collapses completely when we remember that games are not inherently for children, nor are they designed to be disposable, making your argument a textbook case of false equivalence.

>>12296468
>if you now know, it took you long enough. you spent too much time stuck on the product itself decaying or whatever.
Here it comes, the classic “it took you long enough” dismissal, framed as a clever observation. Let’s unpack that. First, notice how this is pure derisive hand-waving, designed to imply incompetence without ever engaging the substance of the argument. You’re pretending the time I’ve spent clarifying distinctions between product decay and design integrity is a flaw on my part, when in reality, it’s called precision. Tracking the difference between the ephemeral appeal of visuals, sound, or novelty versus the immutable quality of gameplay and challenge is not wasted time; it’s exactly the rigorous analysis your glib dismissal pretends to cover.

Second, your phrasing, “stuck on the product itself decaying or whatever”, reduces a nuanced, principled argument to a strawman. I’ve never argued that games physically decay; I’ve consistently argued that the core design, challenge, and mechanics do not age. What you call “stuck” is actually me patiently dismantling a false equivalence you keep trying to force: that comparing games to fleeting novelties or outdated toys somehow proves aging. It doesn’t.

Third, notice the implication: that because I took time to clarify, I somehow “lost” the argument. That’s a textbook attempt at discrediting process to defend a weak position. Substance matters far more than speed or flippancy, yet you frame careful analysis as a defect, while your own argument, that people outgrow simple toys and therefore games age, is shallow, misapplied, and collapses under scrutiny.

This kind of statement is gaslighting dressed as insight. It’s a way to imply I was confused or slow without ever addressing the logical core: that games are static systems, their quality does not erode, and your repeated appeals to “moving on” or “outgrown toys” prove nothing about intrinsic design.

>>12296468
>so you're saying "fun = quality". fun is what the REAL quality is.
>then you say
>That's why the Wii
>obviously representing "fun".
>which did not meet the modern standards of the 360 and PS3
>360 and ps3 representing upper technological quality and capability
>out-sold both of them
>as such, fun is the "real" quality, and sales is the "proof" that its more important than any other notion of "quality".
>thats what you were saying. see? i have literacy and can understand the claims that you make.

Wii example: I explicitly said that the Wii represented fun, and that it did not meet the technological standards of the 360 and PS3. Yet, you conflate its outselling those consoles with me claiming that fun = sales. That is patently false. The point was never that sales prove quality; the point was that a game (or console) can be “fun” and satisfy its design goals even if it is technologically “inferior” to contemporaries. The fact that it sold more is a corollary, not a causation. Using sales as proof of quality is precisely the fallacy you’re attempting to pin on me.

Furthermore, you even admit yourself that you are assuming a typo. That’s telling: your entire argument rests on a misreading and semantic sleight-of-hand, while pretending it demonstrates literacy or comprehension. You are cherry-picking phrases, collapsing separate statements into a false equivalence, and then acting as if pointing out the supposed “contradiction” somehow invalidates the original principle.

Fun is intrinsic, quality is intrinsic, sales are incidental. The Wii’s outselling the 360 and PS3 does not redefine the meaning of quality; it only highlights how external factors can temporarily skew perception or popularity. Your attempt to turn that into “fun = sales” is a textbook misrepresentation. In reality, it proves the exact opposite: you cannot equate popularity or commercial performance with the core design integrity or intrinsic quality of a game.

>>12296468
>no you rambled about irrelevant shit that you're salty about. when people say something has aged, its because they have reevaluated it. thats literally how it works. are you too stupid to even understand that much?

Let’s dissect this carefully, because it’s dripping with both projection and misunderstanding. First, you claim that “when people say something has aged, it’s because they have reevaluated it.” That’s not a universal truth, it’s a simplification meant to paper over the difference between perception and intrinsic quality. Reevaluation is a measure of subjective opinion, not a property of the game itself. A game’s design, mechanics, and challenge do not deteriorate over time just because someone five, ten, or twenty years later feels differently about it. Your framing assumes that shifts in perception are equivalent to shifts in quality, and that’s the very point I’ve been repeatedly clarifying.

Next, your dismissal of “irrelevant shit” is revealing. What you call irrelevant is precisely the core of my argument: games do not age; what shifts is the observer’s context, expectations, and exposure. You are attempting to compress a nuanced principle into a single metric, reevaluation, and then use that metric as proof of aging, which is circular reasoning. It’s convenient for you rhetorically, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Shifts in score, opinion, or popularity are not intrinsic decay; they are external reactions to a static system.

Finally, “are you too stupid to even understand that much?” is pure projection. It assumes authority while completely ignoring the substantive point: I am not arguing that people cannot reevaluate, I am arguing that the game itself remains unchanged. Your focus on dismissing any discussion that doesn’t fit the narrow mold of “reevaluation = aging” is a textbook attempt to move the goalposts and restrict the debate to whatever is easiest to attack.

>>12296468
>meanwhile you include in your quote of me the part where i said "or close to it". and that "or close to it" is what serves you to hold them on comparable ground as something objective.

First, notice that the qualifier “or close to it” is not an attempt to redefine objective reality; it’s a hedge acknowledging minor uncertainty in measurement, something literally every rational evaluation allows for. You’ve deliberately twisted it into a claim that I am trying to elevate a subjective approximation into some immutable “objective” benchmark.

The truth is simple: when I use “or close to it,” it does not magically transform comparison into absolute fact. It merely sets a reasonable range of reference, a way to contextualize and understand the value being discussed without pretending I have omniscient precision. You’re trying to cast this as a flaw or a logical sleight-of-hand, but in reality, it’s standard analytical practice, acknowledging minor variance does not equal pretending everything is exact.

Second, the way you frame it, that this phrase “serves me to hold them on comparable ground as something objective”, is pure projection. You are implying intent where none exists. I am not asserting that the approximate number is absolute truth; I am showing that, within reason, the comparison remains valid for evaluation. You’re inventing an accusation of misrepresentation to avoid engaging with the actual substance.

Let’s be clear: this is another example of your goalpost-moving and nitpicking strategy. Instead of addressing the argument, that certain qualities, mechanics, or benchmarks remain comparable across titles and eras, you seize on a minor linguistic hedge and act as though it collapses the logic. It doesn’t. It’s irrelevant noise, and it demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to engage with the point I’m making: approximations do not undermine the assessment of inherent quality.

>>12296481
>no, your misunderstanding was that i am making a claim that all old game can at this point in time be considered aged. thats not what i said.

Your claim is being misrepresented not by accident, but by the way you’ve structured your argument. You say, “I am not claiming that all old games can be considered aged,” yet everything you’ve argued up to this point, the comparisons to outdated toys, the appeals to shifting impressions, the reliance on reevaluations and sales data, gives the impression that you are treating age as a universal property of older titles. That’s why I consistently have to clarify: the only way your claim works is if you’re careful to isolate individual cases; otherwise, your logic reads as though you’re applying a blanket “aging” label to anything old.

Second, your attempt to distance yourself from the universal claim is telling: it’s a defensive repositioning, a subtle goalpost move. You don’t want to admit that your previous phrasing and examples implied exactly what I’ve been challenging, that older games somehow decay in quality over time. You want to preserve the flexibility to point at some exceptions while still pretending that your overarching point, that games “age”, holds as a principle. That is exactly the kind of slippery logic I’ve been dissecting: trying to have it both ways without ever acknowledging the difference between perception and intrinsic design.

The key remains this: games do not age. Mechanics, challenge, and core design are static; perception, marketing, and context shift. You may not be literally claiming all old games are aged, but the examples you use and the analogies you invoke repeatedly act as though that is the case. Recognizing that distinction is critical. So yes, I am correcting a misunderstanding. And it is exactly this failure to distinguish between intrinsic quality and external perception that makes your arguments appear contradictory or overgeneralized.

>>12296481
>conveniently leaving out "it is extremely likely that eventually, given enough time, ". its only sensible that eventually it could happen. however the notion that all "retro games" have aged and aged poorly at THIS point in time is false. dont misconstrue it.

The “eventually, given enough time” tautology, a philosophical escape hatch that pretends to explain reality while saying nothing at all. Let me be very clear: games do not age. The challenge, mechanics, and core design of a game are immutable snapshots of craft. A game released decades ago still offers the same engagement and skill requirement today as it did on day one. Nothing about the passage of time inherently degrades its systems or the way it plays. Saying “eventually it could happen” is not an argument; it’s a hand-waving prediction meant to shield a weak claim.

Retro games are not fragile artifacts whose value evaporates with the calendar. The notion that they have aged poorly at this very moment is false. Tetris, Super Mario Bros., Ocarina of Time, even the N64 collectathons, their mechanics, puzzles, timing, and challenge remain intact. They are not diminished by modern hardware, modern graphics, or shifting player trends. What changes is the audience’s exposure and context, not the games themselves. This is why arguments that equate novelty with quality collapse under scrutiny: fun, challenge, and design are not temporal, they are structural.

They do not age like food, clothing, or technology; they endure as self-contained systems. To claim otherwise is to confuse perception with substance, to mistake cultural drift for mechanical decay. Retro games are eternal in their design. They do not falter, they do not rot, and they will always hold up, if you can recognize what truly matters: the game itself, not the whims of passing audiences.

>>12296481
>you use reviews, which only illustrate that it was good at one point. "using said reviews" were your exact words. i know that you're illiterate, but keep up.

There it is, YET AGAIN, the attempt to reduce the discussion to a single misreading, as if my use of reviews somehow undermines the principle I’m defending. Let’s break this down carefully. Reviews are not being used to define or validate the intrinsic quality of a game; they are tools of context, snapshots of how contemporaneous audiences perceived a game relative to its peers. When I say “using said reviews,” I am explicitly clarifying a baseline reference, a control point, not asserting that the review itself is the measure of permanent value.

Your argument pretends that citing reviews is equivalent to saying “this game is only good because people said so at one time.” That is a strawman, and a weak one at that. I am fully aware that reviews reflect impressions tied to culture, expectations, and temporal context, they are never the game itself. The gameplay, mechanics, and challenge remain intact regardless of whether the review score shifts or whether modern audiences suddenly decide it’s “dated.”

Moreover, your attempt to frame this as “illiteracy” on my part is projection and a pathetic, flaccid attempt at gatekeeping. The phrase “using said reviews” is precisely literal: I am pointing to them as reference points, nothing more. That is not an admission that quality decays over time; it is an acknowledgment that if you want to measure historical perception, you need some sort of baseline. The moment you turn that into a claim that the game itself has aged, you’ve stepped into false equivalence.

>>12296481
>what people and cultures value changes over time. some things faster than others. concord is (was, lol) a better multiplayer game than goldeneye's multiplayer, but it utterly flopped. if people in the 90s could have played it, they would have shit their pants, but today's market just doesnt want it.
So let me get this straight: you want to hold up Concord as “objectively better” than GoldenEye, yet it flopped hard, nobody played it, and it vanished into obscurity. That’s your evidence for quality? If it was truly better, why didn’t anyone stick with it? Why didn’t it resonate? Why is it now only being invoked as some hypothetical “would have wowed the 90s audience”? You’re building a defense on ghosts and hypotheticals.

Concord didn’t succeed because its mechanics weren’t as tight, its multiplayer wasn’t as engaging, and its design didn’t compel players to keep coming back. These are the things that define whether a game is good. Yet here you are claiming it “aged better” or “should be respected” when in practice it never earned that distinction at all. Are we supposed to ignore that no one actually engaged with it and instead defer to what could have been?

Meanwhile, GoldenEye thrived because its systems were solid, its design intentional, and it delivered lasting challenge and fun. Concord’s mechanics existed in the same static state, yes, but the static state was forgettable, unpolished, and ultimately irrelevant. You want to invoke novelty or “people would have loved it if they saw it” as proof of superiority, that’s exactly the kind of wishful thinking that turns perception into pretend evidence.

If you’re defending Concord’s “quality” while admitting it failed, you’re undermining your own claim. A game that no one played and that flopped cannot be objectively better in any meaningful sense. Its design might exist, sure, but existence alone does not equal greatness.

>>12296862
>I don't understand how "aged poorly" is such a difficult concept for this guy to grasp. No one is saying the game isn't playable or unable to be enjoyed even today. When people say a game "aged poorly" they're saying that it's hard for them to find enjoyment in it because concepts from when the game was made are much harder to find merit, wonder, or joy in and tolerance for after having experienced modern gaming concepts or advancements.

Oh, here we go again, samefagging through semantics like that somehow makes you insightful. Nobody is claiming the game isn’t playable. Nobody is claiming it can’t be enjoyed. The design, the mechanics, the challenge, all of it is exactly as it was when it first shipped. It hasn’t degraded, decayed, or magically softened over time. You? That’s another story.

And yet here you are, leaning on “people find it less enjoyable now” as if the world owes them eternal wonder. Oh, the horror, they’ve experienced better graphics, tighter controls, or fancier menus, clearly, the game itself must be inferior now! That’s the peak of pathetic, self-important reasoning: treating novelty and context as if it’s a universal metric of value. Every classic suddenly “aged poorly” because someone decided their taste is the arbiter of all time. How quaint. How absolutely, hilariously narcissistic.

You want to claim “tolerance for outdated concepts” is a problem with the game? No, genius. It’s a problem with whiny adults mistaking exposure for insight, a desperate attempt to turn their spoiled jadedness into an analytical framework. Tetris hasn’t gotten worse. Super Mario Bros. hasn’t gotten worse. Every mechanic, every timing window, every puzzle and challenge is intact. The only thing that “aged” is the ego that believes it matters that people now expect fancier bells and whistles to enjoy a game.

>>12296862
>I didn't grow up with Atari games, Colecovision, or Intellivision. To me those games feel like absolute ass to play, control poorly, have poor gameplay in general, and are structured poorly so it's really hard for me to find any sort of enjoyment with them.

“I didn’t grow up with it, so I can’t enjoy it, therefore it aged poorly” line. How convenient. Let’s cut through that right now: your personal frustration, your subjective discomfort, is irrelevant to whether the game itself has changed. Mechanics don’t rot. Controls don’t spontaneously degrade. A game released in 1982 is still the same set of rules, the same systems, the same challenge it was the day it came out. What you call “clunky” is nothing more than your own expectations crashing into designs made for a different context, a context you never experienced firsthand. That doesn’t make the game “aged poorly,” it makes you a bad player.

Prince of Persia? A Boy and His Blob? Yeah, they’re not for everyone, but the underlying design hasn’t decayed. NES, SNES, GB, all of them retain their core structure and mechanics. You trying to equate your personal annoyance with universal aging is laughable. You literally just defined “aged poorly” as “I can’t tolerate this anymore,” which is a tautology masquerading as insight. That’s not critique; that’s whining.

And your little caveat about Pokemon or Zelda holding up? That actually proves my point. Games can retain quality independent of your experience. The fact that some titles still shine despite modern expectations shows that aging is not inherent to the game, it’s in the observer. You’re trying to use the few games that don’t engage you as a universal rule for all old games. That’s intellectually lazy.

I've been checking this thread since last week and I just have to say the anon who says games don't age is correct and based.

I didn't grow up with Atari games, Colecovision, or Intellivision, but I still think these systems have lots of fun games. Games don't age.

>>12297309
its so funny how "fun" is the indicator of value/quality, but the moment somebody explains how they dont find it fun, "you're the problem and a narcissist". nope, experience doesnt equate to wisdom or insight, and something better existing doesnt make something inferior. the jokes write themselves.

>>12297146
> “The product” versus “the quality of the product” is not a meaningful distinction
and then you proceed to make that exact distinction in the following.
>Quality is ... it is a judgment
yes. which is free floating and separate from "the product".
>The product is static
yes, and nobody is arguing against that.
>What changes is the observer’s framework
right, their judgement. ergo: the quality.
you're so so close to finally getting it.
>inventing a property called “aging quality”
not really inventing anything. its a pretty widely and well understood concept for people that dont get autistically hung up on wrong definitions of terms.
>You never identify a mechanic that stops functioning, a rule that breaks, a feedback loop that collapses.
i never said they do, and quite immediately when you brought up that misunderstanding of what you think "aging" means, i clarified that nobody is talking about such things. you simply refuse to accept what people are talking about, and have been ranting and seething in an autistic fit.
>I’m not defending old games as a tribe, and I’m not attacking modern ones
you've repeatedly done this, lol.
you also flip flop between "the game is a static structure and existence. that means its quality doesnt change." and "fun = quality" despite fun being a very subjective aspect. you're talking in circles unable to reconcile simple truths that coexist.

>>12297838
>> “The product” versus “the quality of the product” is not a meaningful distinction
>and then you proceed to make that exact distinction in the following.

That’s not the gotcha you think it is, and it hinges entirely on pretending two different uses of language are the same thing.

When I say “the product” versus “the quality of the product” is not a meaningful distinction, I’m addressing your attempt to treat quality as some abstract, floating metric that can change independently of the thing itself. In other words: you’re trying to smuggle in the idea that the object remains the same while its quality mutates over time, as if quality were an external aura applied retroactively. That’s the distinction I’m rejecting.

Pointing out attributes of a product is not the same thing as treating quality as separable from the product. Quality is an evaluation of the product’s fixed properties, its mechanics, rules, balance, structure, challenge. Those properties do not change unless the product itself is altered (patches, remasters, revisions). When I later talk about specific aspects or criteria, I’m still talking about the same underlying object. I’m not granting your premise that “quality” is an independent variable drifting with culture.

I didn’t “proceed to make the exact distinction.” I rejected a false metaphysical split, then continued to discuss the object on coherent terms. What you’re calling inconsistency is just you failing to keep track of levels of analysis, again.

This isn’t a contradiction. It’s you mistaking “talking about qualities” for “treating quality as detachable and time-dependent.” And that mistake is entirely on your end.

>>12297838
>>Quality is ... it is a judgment
>yes. which is free floating and separate from "the product".

No, that conclusion does not follow, and this is where your reasoning keeps derailing.

Yes, quality is a judgment. That does not make it “free-floating,” detachable, or independent of the product. A judgment still has an object. You are confusing epistemology (how we judge) with ontology (what exists).

A quality judgment is about the product’s properties. It is not an autonomous entity drifting through time and culture, periodically reattaching itself to the same object with a different score. If it were truly separate, then quality could change without any change in the underlying referent, which is exactly the incoherent position you’re trying to defend.

Calling quality “separate” in the sense you’re using it implies that two people could evaluate nothing at all and still meaningfully disagree. They can’t. They are evaluating the same object, using different criteria or tolerances. That doesn’t make quality free-floating, it makes judgments fallible or variable, not unmoored.

You’re also smuggling in a second error: variability of judgment ≠ mutability of quality. People disagree about math proofs too; that doesn’t mean the proof’s validity “ages.” Disagreement does not retroactively alter the thing being judged.

You’re treating “judgment” as synonymous with “arbitrary,” and once you do that, you’ve forfeited any coherent way to claim something has “aged poorly” without just admitting “I personally like it less now.”

>>12297838
>>The product is static
>yes, and nobody is arguing against that.

This is exactly where your goalposts skid across the floor.

For pages now, your entire argument has hinged on claiming that games age, not metaphorically, not “people change,” but that the work itself loses quality over time. That is a direct claim that something intrinsic about the product degrades relative to reality. You can’t now retreat to “the product is static” as if that wasn’t the very point under dispute.

If the product is static, then nothing in it changes. Not the mechanics, not the rules, not the challenge curve, not the feedback loops, not the design intent. Which means “aging” cannot be a property of the product. Full stop. At that point, all you are describing is a shift in external standards, expectations, tolerance, or fashion, none of which belong to the game itself.

You don’t get to use the language of decay, decline, and obsolescence and then pretend you were only talking about opinions all along. If you were only talking about shifting taste, then “the game aged” is the wrong claim. The correct claim would be “people changed.” You insisted on the former, argued as if it were intrinsic, and now want shelter in the latter.

Worse, you keep treating “aging” as if it were neutral and descriptive, while smuggling in evaluative conclusions, worse, lower quality, no longer holds up. That’s not a passive observation. That’s a judgment imposed from outside and projected backward onto a static object.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the product changes (it doesn’t), or your entire framework collapses into subjective reevaluation masquerading as objective decay.

>>12297838
>>What changes is the observer’s framework
>right, their judgement. ergo: the quality.
>you're so so close to finally getting it.

No, this is where you keep making the same category error and then congratulating yourself for it.

Yes, the observer’s framework changes. Yes, their judgment changes. But judgment ≠ quality as an intrinsic property. You are smuggling a subjective reassessment into the slot reserved for an attribute of the work itself, then acting like that sleight of hand is some kind of revelation.

If “quality” were identical to judgment, then quality would have no stability at all. It would fluctuate wildly between individuals, cultures, moods, and exposure levels. One person’s boredom would literally reduce the quality of the artifact. That’s absurd, and you don’t actually believe that, because the moment it’s inconvenient, you immediately fall back on shared baselines, design analysis, consistency, and comparative merit. You only collapse quality into judgment when it helps you argue “aging.”

And no, this isn’t me being “close.” This is you almost realizing that if quality truly changed with the observer, then the phrase “aged poorly” stops describing the game and starts describing the audience. Which is precisely the conclusion you’ve been resisting the entire time.

So pick one:

Either quality is intrinsic enough to be meaningfully discussed across time, in which case the game didn’t age.

Or quality is nothing but shifting judgment, in which case “aging” is just people losing novelty tolerance and pretending that’s the game’s fault.

>>12297838
>>You never identify a mechanic that stops functioning, a rule that breaks, a feedback loop that collapses.
>i never said they do, and quite immediately when you brought up that misunderstanding of what you think "aging" means, i clarified that nobody is talking about such things. you simply refuse to accept what people are talking about, and have been ranting and seething in an autistic fit.

No, this is exactly where the problem is, and your dodge here just makes it clearer.

If nothing in the game’s mechanics stops functioning, no rules break, no systems collapse, no feedback loops fail, then you have explicitly conceded that nothing intrinsic to the game has changed. Full stop. That isn’t a misunderstanding on my part, that is the logical implication of what you just admitted.

What you’re trying to do instead is redefine “aging” so that it no longer refers to the work, but to the viewer’s shifting tolerance, expectations, and saturation. And that’s fine if you want to talk about psychology or consumer fatigue, but don’t pretend that’s a property of the game.

You keep saying “nobody is talking about those things,” but that’s precisely the point: if you remove every objective, structural, or functional criterion from the table, then “aging” becomes a vibes-based euphemism for “I’ve seen better tech since.” That is not analysis. That’s aesthetic inflation masquerading as critique.

This isn’t me missing the point. This is you circling it, stepping around it, and then insisting it was never relevant in the first place because acknowledging it collapses your entire claim.

>>12297838
>>I’m not defending old games as a tribe, and I’m not attacking modern ones
>you've repeatedly done this, lol.
>you also flip flop between "the game is a static structure and existence. that means its quality doesnt change." and "fun = quality" despite fun being a very subjective aspect. you're talking in circles unable to reconcile simple truths that coexist.

This is projection dressed up as accusation. I’m not “defending old games as a tribe”; I’m defending a coherent framework you keep tripping over. Pointing out that games are static artifacts isn’t tribalism, it’s a factual premise. Pretending that premise magically vanishes the moment someone has a different emotional reaction is where your inconsistency begins.

You also keep insisting there’s a flip-flop when there isn’t one. “The game is static” and “fun is subjective” are not opposing claims. They coexist cleanly unless you’re trying to force “fun” into being an intrinsic, mutable property of the object itself. I’ve been explicit from the start: the design, rules, mechanics, and challenge are fixed; the reaction to them varies. That’s not circular, that’s a basic separation between artifact and appraisal.

What you keep doing is collapsing those two layers whenever it’s convenient. When it suits you, quality is some floating cultural score that drifts over time. When pressed, quality suddenly becomes “well obviously it’s subjective.” You want it both ways: objective enough to declare something “aged,” but subjective enough to dodge accountability when asked what actually changed.

I’m holding the line you keep stepping over: static works, variable observers. You keep trying to blur that boundary, then accuse me of inconsistency when I won’t let you.

>>12297158
>“the lower-resolution work has lost quality.”
you just cant understand the concept of how being out ranked means "lesser quality". you simply refuse to recognize that "quality" a JUDGEMENT changes due to time and context, and then because time is a part of that people say "it aged", but you autistically stamp your foot down in an absolute TANTRUM about how the object didnt change so that word is false. the quality of the game is less than what it was. deal with it.
>>12297167
sperg
>>12297180
>You didn’t identify a single claim I made that was “wrong,”
i've done it probably dozens of times by now. you simply refuse to recognize or accept them. sorry that you're too autistically fixated on a misunderstanding of basic terms and definitions.
>>12297191
>that accusation only holds if conclusions are drawn before examining the system
oh hey look, its that thing you did by misunderstanding basic terms and definitions.
>the mechanics as they exist and asks whether they function coherently and consistently toward their intended goals
establishing thing exists. cute. i know thats an important part of your argument, but right before that you go
>it evaluates
a judgement. also, a judgement that does not include any reference points for other things that exist. there is no framework for what is high or low quality in that structure. only through experience and exposure (those things you hate, because they collapse your argument) can such quality be determined. if you have no game at all, then ANY game is good, even hoopstick. once you actually have experience and reference points, standards arise. standards and judgements change and develop. things age.

>>12297796
You're free not to find something fun. You're free to express how you PERSONALLY don't like it. But don't pretend it's because it's "aged". Just admit you don't like it. You might not like it because you find it ugly, you might not like the way it controls, that's all fine. Those are all legitimate reasons. What is NOT a legitimate reason is saying it's "aged", because what you're essentially saying is, it doesn't play like the games I'm familiar with, which is a personal bias masquerading as some sort of objective law you've invented because other people enjoyed it, but you don't, and you don't want to sound shallow, petty, or out-of-touch, so you gravitate towards the reasoning that it's the game's fault you don't enjoy it, and not simply yourself who doesn't find it appealing.

>>12297884
>you just cant understand the concept of how being out ranked means "lesser quality". you simply refuse to recognize that "quality" a JUDGEMENT changes due to time and context, and then because time is a part of that people say "it aged", but you autistically stamp your foot down in an absolute TANTRUM about how the object didnt change so that word is false. the quality of the game is less than what it was. deal with it.

No, what you’re doing is equivocating and then getting angry when the sleight of hand is pointed out.

Being out-ranked does not mean something has lost quality. That’s a comparative statement, not a degradative one. If a new chess engine beats an older one, the older engine didn’t “lose quality”; it was surpassed. You’re smuggling in decay where only relative positioning exists.

And yes, “quality” as a judgment changes. That’s been conceded repeatedly. What you keep failing to justify is why a shift in judgment should be described as a property change of the object rather than a recalibration of the observer. You keep asserting it as if repetition turns it into logic.

Time doesn’t magically convert subjective reevaluation into objective loss. Saying “people now judge it lower” is a statement about people. Saying “the game’s quality is lower” pretends the judgment detached itself from the judge and embedded into the cartridge. That’s not how concepts work.

So here’s the bottom line you keep dodging:
If nothing about the game’s systems, rules, feedback, or design worsened, then nothing about the game degraded. What changed was the context of comparison, not the artifact. Calling that “loss of quality” is rhetorical convenience, not analysis.

>>12297884
>i've done it probably dozens of times by now. you simply refuse to recognize or accept them. sorry that you're too autistically fixated on a misunderstanding of basic terms and definitions.

This is just denial layered on top of denial. I’ve identified wrong claims repeatedly, you just dismiss them by relabeling disagreement as “not recognizing” your position, which is a neat trick if your goal is to never be wrong. Every time a specific contradiction is pointed out, you don’t address it; you retreat into “you don’t understand my terms,” as if redefining words mid-argument absolves you from defending the claims built on them.

You keep insisting the issue is my “fixation on definitions,” but definitions are the entire load-bearing structure of your argument. When you say a game “loses quality” while simultaneously admitting nothing intrinsic to the game changes, that’s not me misunderstanding terms, that’s you making an incoherent claim and hoping rhetoric carries it across the gap.

What you call “dozens of times” is just you restating the same assertion: judgment changes over time, therefore the game’s quality changes. And every time, the same flaw is pointed out: that describes a change in evaluators, not a change in the object. You never refute that distinction; you just get louder and more insulting about it.

Calling it “autistic fixation” is another dodge. It’s not fixation, it’s consistency. I’m holding you to the implications of your own admissions. You don’t get to say “nothing about the game degrades” and then, in the next breath, claim the game has degraded in quality without explaining where that degradation exists.

>>12297215
>heres what this term means
>"i disagree"
>well thats what it means and thats whats happening
>"i disagree"
if not illiteracy, then willful ignorance, which really isnt much better. its really not hard to grasp either.

Sorry, but autist-kun is right. Shadows of the Empire hasn't aged. It was kind of ugly and very wonky to control when it was new.

>>12297884
>oh hey look, its that thing you did by misunderstanding basic terms and definitions.

No, that dodge only works if you pretend the examination never happened. The system was examined, repeatedly, and the outcome of that examination is precisely what you keep trying to sidestep. The mechanics were identified as intact, the rules as intact, the feedback loops as intact, the challenge as intact. You yourself have conceded this more than once. That’s the examination. You don’t get to erase it retroactively because you don’t like where it leads.

What you’re doing now is conflating “I disagree with your conclusion” with “you didn’t examine the system.” That’s not an argument, that’s cope. The conclusion follows directly from the examination: if the system is unchanged, then any claimed degradation cannot reside in the system. That isn’t a terminology issue. That’s basic causality.

The irony here is thick: you accuse me of drawing conclusions first, when in reality you decided on the conclusion (“it aged”) and then worked backward, discarding any criteria that would contradict it. When mechanics don’t fail, you say mechanics don’t matter. When structure doesn’t degrade, you say structure isn’t the point. When objectivity collapses, you retreat into vibes and rankings.

>>12297884
>establishing thing exists. cute. i know thats an important part of your argument, but right before that you go

Ah, here we go, the classic dodge where you acknowledge the very framework of the argument and then try to dismiss it as irrelevant. Yes, the mechanics exist, function coherently, and meet their design goals. That is exactly the point. The systems are intact, the feedback loops are unbroken, the rules operate as intended. That is what underpins the entire claim that the game hasn’t aged in any objective sense.

You act like noting the obvious, that the structure works, somehow undercuts the argument, when in reality it is the argument. Without functioning mechanics and intact systems, your whole “it aged poorly” claim would have some standing. But since nothing broke, nothing degraded, your assertion becomes a hollow appeal to subjective frustration or novelty bias.

Then, as always, you leap to misdirection: “cute,” “right before that you go…” as if acknowledging the foundation somehow invalidates the conclusion. It doesn’t. You’re flailing to find a foothold, because there isn’t one. The only thing that changed is the observer, the context, or personal taste. That is not aging of the work itself, it is aging of perception, which is entirely irrelevant if the goal is to assess the static design.

File: this thread.jpg (77 KB, 1280x720)

77 KB JPG

Reading all this fucking tism better be worth at least 1 challenge point.

>>12297884
> if you have no game at all, then ANY game is good, even hoopstick. once you actually have experience and reference points, standards arise. standards and judgements change and develop. things age.

your entire argument is a relativistic appeal dressed up as profundity. You’re basically saying, “quality is meaningless unless you have enough other things to compare it to,” as if the inherent design, mechanics, and challenge of the game suddenly evaporates without a crowd of references. That’s absurd. A game’s structure and systems exist independently of exposure or context. The rules don’t degrade because someone’s library is thin. By that logic, a starving person is “correct” to resort to cannibalism because context has forced their judgment, that doesn’t make the act morally equivalent to civilized eating, it just shows that human perception is contingent. Similarly, not having played other games doesn’t alter the intrinsic properties of the game in front of you.

Your “if you have no game, any game is good” line is a classic attempt to minimize the artifact. Yes, experience informs taste, but a game’s quality is anchored in its own structure, not the observer’s library. The systems, feedback loops, and gameplay remain intact regardless of how many other titles someone has played. You can refine your judgment, but that only allows you to rank, not degrade. The game doesn’t age because someone’s perception changes; it stays exactly what it was the day it shipped.

By framing aging as entirely subjective, “standards and judgments change, therefore the game is worse”, you smuggle relativity into the definition of quality itself. That’s your entire tautology. Exposure may help someone measure, compare, or appreciate, but it cannot inject rot into a game that has never actually degraded. And that is why your claim that games “age” collapses: all that shifts is the observer, not the work.

>>12297239
>They didn’t “age” or become obsolete because of novelty or culture shifts; people just grew up.
oh right, the children that played them didnt see the novelty of these rudimentary toys/games wane, and the culture of these kids didnt change at all in the process of growing up. suuuuure.
>That is the key difference you keep wilfully ignoring: interest moving on does not equate to the object itself deteriorating
i have repeatedly stated that nobody is claiming that it does. you're the one autistically hung up on "if you use the word 'age' then thats what you mean is happening".
>or losing quality
yes, the judgement of what the quality is changes. as a kid "oh fuck yeah, i LOVE marbles!" and as an adult "marbles are kind of shit". so yes, they lost quality. nothing about the object changed. other kids still love them. but the value shifted, and what was once considered high quality is now considered low quality. thats what happens. thats how it happens. it aged.

now, on a grand society scale, marbles absolutely still has its place. it isnt "gone", and it still has its place among some kids. but it also isnt as popular as it used to be either. even the considered value by adults to give to children is lower. instead, other toys and games are preferred. what was once every child's pastime is now a shell of its former self. it aged.

>>12297916
>oh right, the children that played them didnt see the novelty of these rudimentary toys/games wane, and the culture of these kids didnt change at all in the process of growing up. suuuuure.

This is peak projection masquerading as critique, Hoopman. You’re trying to reduce games to the level of children’s toys, pretending that “aging” is somehow inevitable just because players move on. Except, as usual, the logic collapses under a single observation: the artifact itself doesn’t change. Kids grow up, yes, but that has nothing to do with the intrinsic mechanics, design, or challenge of a game. Your entire argument hinges on conflating human development with object deterioration, and it fails spectacularly.

Jump rope, marbles, jacks, all of these still hold value in the right hands, and many people continue to enjoy them decades later. You cherry-pick hoopstick because it’s weak and obscure, trying to argue that “everyone eventually leaves it behind,” and then pretend that this somehow proves games age. It doesn’t. That’s gaslighting: forcing a false analogy between growing up and a static object “decaying.”

You’re also ignoring the point that not all games are made for children. Many games are built for mature, enduring challenge. The fact that one cohort moves on does not erase the design or make the game obsolete. Using children’s toys as a shortcut to claim that “all games age” is not only intellectually lazy, it’s a cynical attempt to weaponize relativity and distract from the actual discussion: whether a game’s core design, rules, and mechanics hold up. They do.

Your “kids grow up” defense is a strawman and a misdirection, nothing more. The game doesn’t age; your analogy does.

>>12297916
>i have repeatedly stated that nobody is claiming that it does. you're the one autistically hung up on "if you use the word 'age' then thats what you mean is happening".

You claim nobody is arguing that interest fading equals object deterioration, yet every post of yours tries to pivot aging entirely onto perception and context. You desperately want “aging” to mean “people moved on” or “culture changed” because that’s all you have left to hold onto. But here’s the thing: acknowledging that the artifact itself remains static completely undermines the foundation of your tautology.

You’re hung up on semantics because you can’t face that your entire premise, “games age because people grow tired or standards shift”, collapses under scrutiny. No amount of verbal gymnastics about definitions changes the fact that the rules, mechanics, challenge, and feedback loops of a game remain exactly what they were when it shipped. The game does not get worse because you, or a generation, decided to look elsewhere.

This isn’t a minor slip; it’s a pattern. You repeatedly try to smuggle subjectivity into the object and then claim I’m “misreading” your terms when I point out the logical consequence: static systems + unchanged mechanics = no aging. You are so eager to conflate perception with reality that you will stamp your foot on the dictionary, scream “age!”, and pretend that human preference somehow retroactively alters the artifact itself. It doesn’t. Never has. Never will.

>>12283627
Other than the snow speeder level this was shit even when it was new. The controls are atrocious.

>>12296862
a boy and his blob was fucking dogshit to play even as a kid, of course I was filtered, the puzzles are bullshit

>>12297916
>yes, the judgement of what the quality is changes. as a kid "oh fuck yeah, i LOVE marbles!" and as an adult "marbles are kind of shit". so yes, they lost quality. nothing about the object changed. other kids still love them. but the value shifted, and what was once considered high quality is now considered low quality. thats what happens. thats how it happens. it aged.

Here we go again, spinning subjective opinion into some supposed universal law of “aging.” Let’s be crystal clear: the object itself did not lose quality. The rules, the structure, the challenge, the feedback loops, every functional aspect of marbles or any game, is exactly the same as it was yesterday, last year, or twenty years ago. What changed? Only the observer’s perception, and you’ve just wrapped that in a tautology and called it “aging.”

You even admit it yourself: “nothing about the object changed. other kids still love them.” So by your own logic, the artifact is perfectly intact, still capable of delivering the same experience to those who engage with it. The fact that one individual’s taste evolved or that some adults no longer get the same thrill does not, in any sense, diminish the design or the challenge inherent to the game. It simply reflects human subjectivity, not objective decay.

Your entire “it aged” claim is just a verbose way of saying: “people’s opinions shifted.” That’s it. And trying to frame perception as a property of the object itself is relativism run amok, a way to erase the inherent quality that exists independent of any individual’s tastes. The object has not deteriorated, the mechanics haven’t changed, and the “high quality” you claim was lost is still fully accessible to anyone willing to engage with it.

>>12297916
>now, on a grand society scale, marbles absolutely still has its place. it isnt "gone", and it still has its place among some kids. but it also isnt as popular as it used to be either. even the considered value by adults to give to children is lower. instead, other toys and games are preferred. what was once every child's pastime is now a shell of its former self. it aged.

Here it is AGAIN, the exhausted argument you continuously reach into your asshole and smear shit on the board with in a desperate gasping attempt to maintain some sort of relevance or "gotchya", the tired “society decided it’s not popular anymore, therefore it aged". Popularity is not quality. Marbles didn’t suddenly become harder to play, the mechanics didn’t deteriorate, and the challenge hasn’t evaporated. The only thing that shifted is collective perception and choice. Society can abandon something tomorrow, and it still does what it was designed to do perfectly well. Its intrinsic quality remains untouched.

Your argument is nothing more than a popularity-based illusion of decay, dressed up as social proof. And the funniest part? People are starting to recognize this exact distinction more and more, even outside this thread. Analysts, retro gamers, and designers alike increasingly separate inherent design quality from cultural trendiness. Marbles hasn’t “aged”; what has changed is the audience and their attention. That’s all that’s happening.

So yes, society may have moved on, adults may hand out other toys, and kids may gravitate toward new novelties, but none of that rewrites the fact that the game itself still exists, fully functional and capable of the same engagement it always has. Calling it “a shell of its former self” is just your subjective lens trying to masquerade as a universal law. The trend shifts; the artifact does not. Popularity is fluid, quality is static, and the world is slowly catching on to the difference, my point, not yours.

>>12297257
>The point was never that sales prove quality
then you shouldnt have brought up sales if they are an irrelevant detail. the fault is on you.
>Furthermore, you even admit yourself that you are assuming a typo
i gave you the benefit of the doubt. you outright said "Never said fun = sales", and if you ctrl+f, you'll see that the first person to say it was... you, in that post demanding i prove where you said it. because i never said it either. now, i DID say "fun + sales", and + and = are the same key, so i was feeling generous to give you the benefit of the doubt. because coming out and saying "fun = sales. prove where i said that" when you didnt, was so laughably retarded. but go on about your superior literacy, we're all laughing at you.

>>12297943
>then you shouldnt have brought up sales if they are an irrelevant detail. the fault is on you.

You try to distance yourself from the obvious implication of your own example after the fact, pretending that mentioning sales had no bearing. Except it did, and you cannot retroactively neuter the argument you yourself inserted. Bringing up sales, units moved, or popularity inherently frames a conversation in terms of perceived success, and the second you do that, anyone with half a brain can read between the lines: you were implying some measure of value. Now, you backpedal because you realize it undermines your position, but the slip is already there.

This is textbook goalpost moving. You introduce a metric to support your point, then claim it never counted once it’s exposed as irrelevant, a rhetorical sleight meant to save face, not advance clarity. The real issue is that you’re trying to hide behind “irrelevance” while your own example continues to carry weight in the discussion. Sales can suggest popularity, visibility, or market impact, none of which prove inherent quality, and yes, I can happily acknowledge that. But the fact that you brought it up in a debate about quality at all shows your argument was already tainted by conflating popularity with merit, which is exactly what I’ve been pointing out.

So no, the fault is not on me for calling it out; it’s on you for failing to maintain internal consistency. You cannot cherry-pick metrics, pretend they never had meaning, and expect anyone to treat that as a serious claim about quality. The objectivity of the artifact remains untouched, and your attempt to hide behind “irrelevance” is just another mask for an internally contradictory argument.

>>12297943
>i gave you the benefit of the doubt. you outright said "Never said fun = sales", and if you ctrl+f, you'll see that the first person to say it was... you, in that post demanding i prove where you said it. because i never said it either. now, i DID say "fun + sales", and + and = are the same key, so i was feeling generous to give you the benefit of the doubt. because coming out and saying "fun = sales. prove where i said that" when you didnt, was so laughably retarded. but go on about your superior literacy, we're all laughing at you.

Ah, classic deflection dressed as correction. You’re desperately trying to rewrite the transcript in your favor by framing it as a minor typo or keyboard misfire, but let’s not pretend this isn’t transparently absurd. You conflated fun and sales in your framing, tried to force it into a false equivalence, and then gaslit me for “misreading” your claim. Giving you the benefit of the doubt doesn’t erase the fact that the logic you attempted to sneak past, that commercial success somehow validates fun or quality, was already on shaky ground, and your insistence now that it was a “+ vs =” thing is just the latest word gymnastics.

What’s really happening here is a classic projection and post-hoc justification: you made a sloppy statement, got called on it, and now you’re trying to make it seem like the error was my misinterpretation instead of your sloppy rhetoric. The cherry on top? You pepper it with faux superiority about literacy while simultaneously undermining your own argument with convoluted keyboard analogies. It’s almost impressive in a tragic, clownish way.

>>12297262
>Reevaluation is a measure of subjective opinion, not a property of the game itself.
25 straight, one-sided, autistic rants, rooted in this misunderstanding that because the word "aged" was used, that must mean that intrinsic properties of the game have decayed or deteriorated. like, theres really no point in dissecting every other semantic mistake you make. thats the core of the problem. your autistic fixation refusing to accept simple terms and how they are used.

>>12297943
>>12297916
>>12297884
dude, just stop, he's literally raping you

>>12297956
>25 straight, one-sided, autistic rants, rooted in this misunderstanding that because the word "aged" was used, that must mean that intrinsic properties of the game have decayed or deteriorated. like, theres really no point in dissecting every other semantic mistake you make. thats the core of the problem. your autistic fixation refusing to accept simple terms and how they are used.

It’s fascinating to watch you double down on misrepresentation because you literally have nothing left to challenge me with. Every post from you is the same pattern: twist my words into strawmen, dismiss well-reasoned points with flippant hand-waves, and now, having been systematically shown why your claims don’t hold, you’re spinning excuses about “semantics” and “subjective opinion” instead of actually engaging with the argument.

Let’s be honest, this isn’t about misunderstandings or literacy issues. It’s about the fact that the more you try to assert that games “age” or decline in quality, the more the evidence, logic, and examples I’ve laid out expose your position as baseless. And rather than confront it, you invent reasons to ignore the core issue. Suddenly, “the word aged” becomes some magical talisman that lets you dismiss reality. Suddenly, pointing out that a game’s mechanics, challenge, and design are unchanged is a “semantic fixation.”

You’re trying to retroactively claim the fight is about terms instead of substance because you can’t defend your original position. That’s the pattern: misrepresent, dismiss, and now excuse your own inability to engage honestly. Every new post is less about refuting me and more about preserving the illusion that you’re still “winning” despite being thoroughly dismantled. The truth? You’ve run out of arguments, so now it’s just rationalizations and gaslighting.

File: 1413584677440.jpg (21 KB, 693x508)

21 KB JPG

This is, without a doubt, the most autistic, bullshit-ridden, flagrantly argued thread I've ever seen on this fucking bullshit website. May god have mercy on your souls.

>>12297852
>your attempt to treat quality as some abstract, floating metric that can change independently of the thing itself
it quite literally does.
>That’s the distinction I’m rejecting
rejecting facts doesnt make them not facts. the musket can still kill man, but it is no longer considered high quality weaponry. the ford model T can still get you from A to B, but it is no longer considered a high quality car. you can still find entertainment in something like goldeneye, but to people that arent autisitic retards, they arent considered high quality games anymore. these things have aged. piss and shit and throw your autistic tantrum, it doesnt change that simple truth.

>>12297852
>Quality is an evaluation
evaluation is a judgement. judgements and what drives them changes. the thing can stay the same, but judgements can change for a variety of reasons. trying to pretend like an evaluation is as static as the object's properties is laughably pathetic, especially when you previously backtrack with "n-no, old reviews arent immutable, i d-didnt mean THAT!" pick a lane and stop flip flopping. grow up and accept that quality changes and things age.

>>12297979
Let’s strip away all the fluff and euphemisms: this is exactly where your argument collapses under its own weight. GoldenEye hasn’t “aged” in any meaningful sense, its mechanics still function perfectly, its rules are coherent, its feedback loops work, and its design delivers the same challenge and engagement as it did on release. That is objective. Saying it’s “no longer considered high quality” is entirely subjective, rooted in your shifting personal tastes, modern obsessions, or nostalgia bias. None of that changes the game itself. None of it alters the experience if someone approaches the game without preconceptions.

Your appeal to cultural perception is irrelevant to whether a game is good. A musket’s lethality or a Model T’s efficiency isn’t comparable, because games are interactive systems, they don’t decay with time, they either work or they don’t. GoldenEye still works. It still engages, still challenges, still provides the gameplay experience it was built to provide. End of story.

You are trying to frame “aging” as if gameplay quality is contingent on contemporary standards, audience opinion, or trend relevance. That’s nonsense. The game itself is static. If it was fun, challenging, or engaging at release, it remains so today. All your “society thinks differently now” hand-waving is a smokescreen for the fact that you can’t point to a single failing mechanic, broken rule, or collapse in gameplay that would support your claim. It hasn’t happened, it won’t happen, and trying to hide behind subjective perception doesn’t give your argument any traction.

GoldenEye hasn’t aged. It can still be played and enjoyed exactly as it was designed. That is immutable, objective, and unarguable, no amount of culture or opinion shifts changes the game itself.

>>12297992
This is exactly where your reasoning collapses, and you don’t even realize it. You’re conflating judgment with intrinsic quality, as if someone saying a game “feels worse now” somehow alters the game itself. It doesn’t. The rules, mechanics, challenge, and feedback loops that make a game playable and engaging remain entirely unchanged. That is the only thing that matters when assessing a game’s quality objectively. Your repeated attempts to shift between “evaluations change” and “reviews are immutable” is just you flailing for cover after being shown that the object itself isn’t affected by perception.

Judgments are subjective. They fluctuate based on experience, trends, or personal preference. That does not make the game worse, and it does not “age” the game in any meaningful sense. GoldenEye, Super Mario 64, or Zelda: Ocarina of Time deliver the same gameplay experience today as they did at release, the mechanics, challenges, and design do not degrade over time. Your insistence that they “age” because opinions shift is a tautology masquerading as fact.

Stop pretending that cultural perception or retroactive evaluation can rewrite a game’s inherent structure. You can dislike a game for any reason you want, but that has zero bearing on whether the game itself has lost quality. Quality does not “change” just because someone might have a differing opinion later on, or their personal appeals limits them from appreciating earlier titles. The game is static, and its core gameplay remains fully intact. Everything else, taste, trends, nostalgia, market reception, is noise, not evidence of aging.

>>12297858
>You are confusing epistemology (how we judge) with ontology (what exists)
you're confusing "the evaluation and judgement of quality" with "quality = a thing's properties"

and funny enough, some of those properties... they get improved upon. almost as though they get outclassed and dwarfed into being... lesser quality.