I think it doesn't matter because I honestly I find the gameplay and story way more interesting then the graphics. Just look at the legend of zelda: Twilight Princess. The game's graphics haven't aged well, but the gameplay has aged well on the other hand

Edited April 17, 20169 yr by Zeldablade7

When people say a game has aged well, it isn't always just about graphics. Controls are also a factor. Even in KH, the original game is now really clunky because of the way the camera is, and the lack of the "reaction command" per say when opening chests and using things like strike raid.

 

So, when people say a game has aged well, it's often about how things control or are presented to you. Graphics are a factor as well, but the other two are vastly more important.

I think when players say "hasn't aged well", they refer to the experience as a whole, not just the graphics or just the story and gameplay. In fact, if a game's experience is so good, sometimes it will actually make small details like the graphics kind of charming and appealing, no matter how obsolete they might be by today's standards. You don't need much in order to make a game a timeless classic that's fun no matter when you play it, but it certainly doesn't hurt when a game tries to be the best it can be on all fronts. Kingdom Hearts looked pretty damn good for an early PS2 era title and it was only backed up even more by it's compelling story and superb gameplay and ideal casting (well, I mean Mandy Moore as Aerith was okay, but I feel more at home with her current actress). Yes I know you like to keep bringing up how unimportant you think the graphics are, but I see them as an essential part of what makes up a video game. Video games while interactive are still a visual medium, like movies. If the cinematography in a movie is terrible while all the acting and story is done well, audiences are still going to complain about how hard the movie was to look at. Likewise, regardless of how a video game is depicted, be it super realistic or super stylized, it should always be handled well so that instead of being a distracting detail or oversight that distracts from the experience of the game it actually adds to it and in many ways completes the experience. I mean how much detail you feel you need just depends on you as a gamer, but I think you can agree that you still at least need to see SOMETHING on screen to give the story and gameplay life, otherwise it's just a computer D&D make your own adventure game.

 

To that end, yes it can actually matter if a game ages well in experience, as it ensures that you'll have a great time playing it no matter which era you're being more exposed to now. That's why so many games from the 80's and 90's are still being played and loved today by all generations (well, the good ones anyway), yeah they don't look like what we have today but they're so fun and well-made that you just kind of ignore the little date in the copyright logo on the startup screen. I think the way you probably meant to phrase your question was whether it mattered if the graphics aged well, because as far as how a game as a whole ages, it certainly does matter if it still feels as fun to play today as it was the year it came out.

Edited April 17, 20169 yr by Hero of Light XIV

When people say a game has aged well, it isn't always just about graphics. Controls are also a factor. Even in KH, the original game is now really clunky because of the way the camera is, and the lack of the "reaction command" per say when opening chests and using things like strike raid.

 

So, when people say a game has aged well, it's often about how things control or are presented to you. Graphics are a factor as well, but the other two are vastly more important.

 

I think when players say "hasn't aged well", they refer to the experience as a whole, not just the graphics or just the story and gameplay. In fact, if a game's experience is so good, sometimes it will actually make small details like the graphics kind of charming and appealing, no matter how obsolete they might be by today's standards. You don't need much in order to make a game a timeless classic that's fun no matter when you play it, but it certainly doesn't hurt when a game tries to be the best it can be on all fronts. Kingdom Hearts looked pretty damn good for an early PS2 era title and it was only backed up even more by it's compelling story and superb gameplay and ideal casting (well, I mean Mandy Moore as Aerith was okay, but I feel more at home with her current actress). Yes I know you like to keep bringing up how unimportant you think the graphics are, but I see them as an essential part of what makes up a video game. Video games while interactive are still a visual medium, like movies. If the cinematography in a movie is terrible while all the acting and story is done well, audiences are still going to complain about how hard the movie was to look at. Likewise, regardless of how a video game is depicted, be it super realistic or super stylized, it should always be handled well so that instead of being a distracting detail or oversight that distracts from the experience of the game it actually adds to it and in many ways completes the experience. I mean how much detail you feel you need just depends on you as a gamer, but I think you can agree that you still at least need to see SOMETHING on screen to give the story and gameplay life, otherwise it's just a computer D&D make your own adventure game.

 

To that end, yes it can actually matter if a game ages well in experience, as it ensures that you'll have a great time playing it no matter which era you're being more exposed to now. That's why so many games from the 80's and 90's are still being played and loved today by all generations (well, the good ones anyway), yeah they don't look like what we have today but they're so fun and well-made that you just kind of ignore the little date in the copyright logo on the startup screen. I think the way you probably meant to phrase your question was whether it mattered if the graphics aged well, because as far as how a game as a whole ages, it certainly does matter if it still feels as fun to play today as it was the year it came out.

I actually never knew this until now. Thanks guys!

I wouldn't think so. How can a game age? It's an object unless it's basically looking back on what controls and graphics were like then that you're talking about.

I wouldn't think so. How can a game age? It's an object unless it's basically looking back on what controls and graphics were like then that you're talking about.

That's basically it. It's answering the questions 'is this game still fun to play today' and 'would someone new to the game enjoy it as much as I did'. Some games such as Tetris have aged incredibly well since the gameplay and graphics still hold up today while others (mainly the first wave of 3D games) are ugly and play poorly. It's about playing old games and seeing if they are still enjoyable. They don't matter to new games but it's something interesting to do with old games you used to like.

That's basically it. It's answering the questions 'is this game still fun to play today' and 'would someone new to the game enjoy it as much as I did'. Some games such as Tetris have aged incredibly well since the gameplay and graphics still hold up today while others (mainly the first wave of 3D games) are ugly and play poorly. It's about playing old games and seeing if they are still enjoyable. They don't matter to new games but it's something interesting to do with old games you used to like.

Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I would say it slightly matters. I mean, how old is the original KH2? Ten years old. If you think it is still fun to play, then I think it has age well.

A lot of it has to do with one's own individual nostalgia meter. If you see an old game an your first thought is "MY CHILDHOOD", chances are you'll be far more inclined to think it aged well, regardless of if it actually did or not. Nostalgia glasses/goggles is often used to describe the term, and it applies to pretty much any influential medium (movies/books/tv/etc).

Well, as long as I enjoy any particular video game I'm playing, it doesn't matter how many years pass, ya know?  Like, take the Lego Star Wars video games for example.  I have the first two for my Playstation 2, and they're really old!  When I was a kid, it took me forever to beat them, but now that I'm a smarter gamer, I breezed through the first game in less than nothing, and I almost got all the collectibles down!  After getting all the collectibles for that game, I'll play Lego Star Wars II. But yeah, my point is that as long as I enjoy a game, it doesn't matter how much it ages, ya know?

 

Obviously, the KH games are another set of games I never tire of, or the Jak And Daxter games!  Those are awesome too!  In my opinion, as long as you enjoy a game, it'll age along with you just fine, ya know?