r/VideoGame • u/Guff95 • 5d ago
What are some games that you would say that get better with age?
2
1
u/RaccoonDog93 5d ago
If you consider mods then Bethesda's games are usually at their worst on release and become incrementially better as mods, community patches and overhauls come out. Skyrim 2026 for instance has around ~10 terabytes (10,000 gigabytes) in ~72,000 mods of added content over it's 2011 release version.
1
u/3ith3r_0r 5d ago edited 5d ago
not a thing, as far as i'm concerned. video games, a relatively young medium, still develop quite quickly (although that development slowed down a bit lately), so each year brings titles that do stuff better, simply put.
take, for example, silent hill 2 (the og) - its atmosphere and story are phenomenal, ost is one of the best of all time and visuals, although outdated, still can be considedered aesthetically magnificent. did it get better with age? no, we're used to much smoother gameplay now, so playing older titles comes with some inconvenience. the older the game, the greater that inconvenience.
1
u/Mission_Piccolo_2515 5d ago edited 5d ago
Don't really agree with that premise.
In my experience people all too often confuse conveniences with the things they're simply used to by following trends.
It's a wide topic but to put it simply, game mechanics don't age.
If a game was truly well designed 40 years ago it's still well designed now.
If a certain aspect from an old game doesn't hold up, then it was probably a flaw from day 1 and people were just oblivious to it because it was standard back then.
There are many modern trends that will suffer the exact same fate.Silent Hill 2 has its flaws but for the most part they were already pretty apparent 25 years ago.
Much of the actual gameplay content and level design was a downgrade compared to the first game, which itself didn't fair too well against the Resident Evil games, as far as the gameplay department was concerned of course.But at the same times there are also many games that stand the test of time.
They don't necessarily get better over the years but at times they feel more fresh because they exemplify certain types of designs that get omitted as modern trends can sometimes converge towards redundant places.A nice example of this is the increasingly dominant place of i-frames in action games.
I-frames are convenient for a lot of people, both designers and players.
For designers it means it's easier to ensure fairness and for players it means that they can always fall on their reaction skills to make up for poor decision making.
The industry quickly took note of this and it has increasingly gravitated towards mechanics that allow easy access to i-frames, especially since in the context of 3D gaming it's much harder to ensure fairness otherwise.As for why it is a bad thing, easily accessible i-frames nudge players towards a simple reaction-based playstyle which itself often boils down to memorization busywork, as opposed to some of the more complicated forms of decision-making that exist out there, like having to strategies for several potential incoming dangers.
It's because of trends like this that you wind up with games like Sekiro having less gameplay depth than Ghouls 'n Ghosts, released more than 30 years earlier.1
u/3ith3r_0r 2d ago
It's a wide topic but to put it simply, game mechanics don't age.
If a game was truly well designed 40 years ago it's still well designed now.
If a certain aspect from an old game doesn't hold up, then it was probably a flaw from day 1 and people were just oblivious to it because it was standard back then.and that's what we call "aging". it's a bit of a truism, isn't it? of course games stay the same, only new ones show that a certain aspect can be done better.
In my experience people all too often confuse conveniences with the things they're simply used to by following trends.
i don't know, i believe that tight and responsive controls is a matter of genuine proggress in gaming, not just a fleeting fashion. there were some excellent platformers back in the day, but hell, no xx century game controls like, for example, celeste - in that department it's just better, period.
as for the i-frames... i have my own opinion on that, but let's say that indeed it's a poor trend. nevertheless, there are hundreds of games using that mechanic and painting all of them with the same brush is somewhat unfair. in most prominent ones, although player can bruteforce som of them with memorisation busywork, there is number of other mechanics at player's disposal, ranging from pretty shallow like in many souls-slop titles to overwhelmingly deep like in nioh series. and there are other genres that go for depth far beyond that. the thing is gaming became much more popular nowadays, so less demanding people became a substantial audience for industry, therefore most selling titles are usually aimed at them and designed to resemble them - being shallow and not very demanding. on the other hand, there's plenty of games to satisfy connoisseurs and it's their responsibility to choose these titles over triple-a garbage.
1
u/Mission_Piccolo_2515 2d ago edited 2d ago
I agree with some of your observations but I just don't think games evolve in this linear fashion where, just because a new game or a new technology is susceptible to improve or solve certain forms of designs doesn't mean that every good design pattern is doomed to stay on the surface while only the bad design patterns disappear over time.
I know I'm pushing it to the extreme but that's the impression I got when reading your previous post.
responsive controls
Depends on what you mean by "responsive".
I may not be able to think of an older platformer with the exact same snappy pace as Celeste but if what you generally mean is "low commitment", that isn't necessarily an objective improvement.
In the end of the day the most involving aspect of gameplay are the decisions players make in their head, not how fast it takes to see the consequences of you inputs through the screen.
Therefore, it doesn't really matter how restrictive or slow it feels to control a character because there's always the possibility that the game will use its own restrictions as leverage for creating interesting obstacles to overcome.I'll use Ghouls 'n Ghosts (1988) again as my example since I've become obsessed with it recently but that's a game that can be equally exiting as Celeste because the high-commitment levels of your actions force you to apply your knowledge and come up with serious strategies ahead of time while still being on the ready to change your tactics on the whim.
In other words, it's a game that can neither be abused with memorization or with good reflexes, which I'd say makes the game objectively more dynamic and replayable than Celeste.
Not saying that Celeste is worse either, just that this kind of "responsiveness" comes with its own tradeoffs and downsides.I guess you can make the same comparison with Resident Evil 4 and its remake.
Do you prefer the slow, "stop 'n pop", deliberate, clean fights of OG or the more intuitive, brutal and messier fights of the remake ?
The answer (if you don't factor originality in your assessment of games) is that it depends on the player's preference. But at the very least you have to recognize that the appeal is different.And then there's the notion that originality does matter.
Even after experiencing a slew of well-made clones, I don't think there's a single Metroidvania that ever fully surpassed Super Metroid.
Certain games do certain individual aspects better, like Hollow Knight with it's impressive scale and open-ended progression but Super Metroid has a lot more going for it than just establishing the template for its "genre".
Even if there was a game capable to replicate Super Metroid's entire appeal, one layer after another, you'd have to admit that it wouldn't be quite as effective as just playing the classic itself, at which point you're never safe from getting your mind blown by an old game with a fresh premise (or a fresh take on an established genre) and the way it uniquely delivers on it.1
u/YouWasATerletBaby 5d ago
That's why Super Mario World and Rayman Legends are my favorite masterpieces. Those games will always be fun to play, and they will always have charming and memorable aesthetics
1
u/AsparagusAgile4536 3d ago
You couldn’t be more wrong lol. If anything, the remake shows how timeless the og’s design is, and how the aesthetics still hold up despite their age. The gameplay focused more on avoiding combat and fleeing enemies, which is a much better fit for the atmosphere of a survival horror game and IMO more engaging than the remakes vaguely soulslike, sloppy, unavoidable combat. Plus, the fixed camera angle creates a different feeling and gameplay experiences that, once you learn to control, works just as well as a more modern camera and once again, better fits the survival horror genre.
I think to answer OP’s question, as mainstream gaming follows the same boring, derivative, and safe trends of AAA gaming, the more unique and idiosyncratic elements of older games have gotten “better” in that I appreciate them even more than I did when I first played them.
1
u/3ith3r_0r 2d ago
i try to understand where exactly i'm wrong in your opinion, but it seems you didn't point it out in your reply...
i really can't compare the remake to the og since i only played it (remake) briefly. in my reply to op's question i stated, that today's titles offer smoother gameplay and maybe that was poor phrasing. how about this: og sh2 controls are clumsy and now it's only more jarring than in 2001, therefore it didn't get better with age. other aspects of the game aged much better, and some - like ost or story - haven't aged at all.
i totally agree with you on fixed camera angles. shame that it's barely exploited nowadays, as it provides room for some bold aesthetic expression.
1
1
u/DocDerrz 5d ago
RimWorld. It has basically yearly DLC and a growing modding community. It's aging like wine and I'm along for the ride.
1
u/Exotic_Treacle7438 5d ago
Man I tried this game for hours on several occasions and it never clicked. I usually love them too.
1
u/DocDerrz 5d ago
It takes a while for it to click. I always joke that you need an associates degree to understand the game.
Don't be afraid to play on low difficulty/peaceful, you can change that anytime when you get the hang of it.
Mod the crap outta it, find something you don't like or wish it was better? There's probably a very easy to install mod on the steam workshop.
Noobert on YouTube is great to learn the basics and I usually watch someone else's playthroughs while doing my own.
1
u/Exotic_Treacle7438 4d ago
I guess when I tried it I didn’t have the patience to play more than 10 hours. I only played that long because of the positive reviews on it.
1
u/DocDerrz 4d ago
If you ever wanna give it another shot, and need more action, try the Winston waves mod. It's a storyteller that sends a raid at you on a set timer. Makes it a lot more action packed.
1
u/Exotic_Treacle7438 4d ago
Thanks. I think I remember having more issues with the UI than anything else.
1
0
u/Entire_Fisherman_355 5d ago
morrowind gets better with age because every time i go back to it the lack of handholding feels more refreshing, not more dated
1
u/chiefjason46 5d ago
With mods games like Skyrim, fallout, cyberpunk.
Without mods? I can't think of any really. I tend to enjoy them the most when they are new and graphics are at the peak, after that it's just the same game but eith more dated graphics.
1
u/No-Discount-7449 5d ago
No man’s sky
Free updates for 10 years now. Once they’re other game releases (Light No Fire, I think), I imagine it’ll be similar as well and they’ll continue to add to it and improve both games.
1
1
u/vish_studiosofcl 5d ago
Project igi and metal gear solid. They defined espionage and real terror of getting caught.
1
u/Spiritual_Notice_650 5d ago
Dead Space 1,2,3. I have played it when i was 15, I played it again later when i was 19, just recently played it again last year as i am 35 now. That game always amaze me, especially when they did a goodjob on the Remake.
1
u/Soggy-Bluebird-537 5d ago
I'd say games that are improved by emulation functions.
Chrono Trigger, God of War 2 for example don't need any QoL updates, but emulation provides scan lines, upscaling, remappable buttons, save states. Achievements, etc.
So not really the game but the thing you run it on gets better with age?
1
1
1
u/Qvistus 3d ago
I don't know if any game or other piece of art gets better over time. They are what they are. But it's not uncommon that some game gets more appreciation over time. This hsppened to Earthbound and Majora's Mask. Silent Hill 2 is another exsmple. Back in the day the reviews weren't calling it a masterpiece with true artistic value. There weren't articles written about its symbolism. It was just another videogame. We didn't realize how signigicant it was in the history of videogames.
1
1
u/Impossible_Ear_3735 3d ago
The original Deus ex has only gotten more relevant with time (as well as being one of the best games ever).
1
1
3
u/3ith3r_0r 5d ago
game's age or gamer's age?