Graphics: Common Myths

[Foxchild]

Interesting how some games are considered to have "aged well" and others not so much. Graphics obviously show their age, but that can be corrected with a fresh coat of paint - see all the HD releases that've been coming out. Doing so must enhance the experience, since I doubt many people still play their old versions once they've picked up the new. But when something like the actual gameplay doesn't stand the test of time (something once innovative is now meh) the game is forgotten.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Interesting how some games are considered to have "aged well" and others not so much. Graphics obviously show their age, but that can be corrected with a fresh coat of paint - see all the HD releases that've been coming out. Doing so must enhance the experience, since I doubt many people still play their old versions once they've picked up the new. But when something like the actual gameplay doesn't stand the test of time (something once innovative is now meh) the game is forgotten.

Eh the HD rereleases don't even make them look entirely "modern", just slightly better.

 

[FAST6191]

Sitting here I am going to have to pick at your points Foxchild.

Some of the rereleases have been horrible though that is not a terribly new concept (back in the day when porting actually meant something....). Silent Hill, the Tony Hawk HD game (I have since played it.....) and a many a handheld compilation or port that was actually adapted will attest to that one.

Actual gameplay and the test of time. First I think I will go with one of the ideas in games of them getting too complex (if going for the visual metaphor the progression of controllers is a good one) might play into this. Granted it says little about "test of time".
Similarly several games have been sideported, modded/hacked to fix issues or remade in new engines or corrected in later releases (sometimes at a cost where the original designers realised the shortcomings and the remake adds new/later abilities which break the game at those points).

As for "forgotten" it seems what is popular, what is remembered and what is "remembered" despite if all those people played it then would have eclipsed the reasonable amount for the time seems somewhat arbitrary and almost certainly arbitrary in retrospect (I am banking on several of the "COD clones" being remembered fondly in a decade or so for although they did improve upon the formula it was not enough to overcome burnout).

 

[TripleSMoon]

Eh the HD rereleases don't even make them look entirely "modern", just slightly better.

All it really does is keep them from looking like shit on HDTVs.

 

[Foxchild]

All it really does is keep them from looking like shit on HDTVs.

True that.

What I'm thinking about is whether a game is still fun to play/worth playing 10-15 years later. What is it that gives a game longevity? It's almost inevitable that the graphics and control interface are going to show their age eventually. I know the game companies decide which games to reincarnate into HD based on $$$, but not the modders and hackers out there doing it for nothing. Plus, there are plenty of classics that will continue to survive without needing to be updated. Personal preference and nostalgia are probably both factors in deciding which games are worth keeping, as well as being strong enough in other areas (story/characters, gameplay mechanics, etc.) that aging elsewhere can be forgiven. What do you think?

Also, when will there be an HD rerelease of the Atari 2600's Adventure?

 

[FAST6191]

Control schemes showing their age.....

Now many of the 3d cameras, especially those before we moved to proper dual sticks, will not hold up favourably and doubly so since we have still not come close to making a proper camera for a 3d game let alone back then. Still Zelda style z targeting worked OK for a lot of things, RE4 stop and shoot and straight over the shoulder locked camera all do well enough with proper level design.

This is probably where your 10-15 years comment comes into play though as the N64 is going on 17 years old now (about this time in June 1996 in Japan), the PS1 is a couple of years old give or take a few months and early mainstream full 3d was shockingly poor at holding up. Even worse if they tried something like you might see in modern games (resident evil works well enough though that was prerendered, vagrant story I can still play, MediEvil on the PS1 I can still enjoy but that was also a dual shock game).

Back on controls

Platform was a solved problem more or less coming into the NES and master system in terms of home consoles, was doing OK ish on the PC before then and even on the C64 it did OK. I will lump shmups in there as well.

Mouse and keyboard pretty much solved FPS and had done since around Quake and the ability to look up and down. That said even those that did not care quite so much for up and down did OK.

Driving. This depends if we are going 3d or top down/isometric. Arcades solved the latter years before and though the earlier attempts at full 3d (looking at many amiga efforts) the race to the horizon games more or less sorted that early on as well.

Flight games. Given we got to lament the passing of joysticks....

Now bad controls will probably always be bad controls (barring hackers coming along and fixing them of course*) but controls themselves have largely been a solved problem as long as the technology has been there to display it, which is basically forever though there will be milestones if you look at actual history.

*actually automated macros, programmable controllers and more existed even back in the day.

 

[Rydian]

Joysticks are still a popular buy for players of Kerbal Space Program, at least.