Re: When Is A Game Old?

On 07/04/2024 17:40, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

 I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
 Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
differences between games of the various eras in which they were
released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
 So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games?
Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
'old' and notably different from a modern title?
 The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
 Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the
industry?
 Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
 

Tricky one but using "meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct" I would probably put this somewhere around the early 2000's. So taking as an example FarCry:1, yeh the visuals aren't up to the standards of today but I think they are perfectible serviceable. The mechanics, again not the the same but I don't think they are that different. Fast forward to Crysis and the graphics have taken a another big step that is more than acceptable to me.
Going backwards a few years you have the likes of Planescape:Torment and BG:1/2. Play them in their original form and they do look dated. Grab the enhanced editions which are a lick of paint in terms of QoL and graphics and for me that all goes away.
So where was I, oh yes I think more in terms of outdated and not just old (personally I think anything over ten years is old) as to me that makes more sense. Using that I feel it becomes quite hard to put a date on it as it varies by genre.
As for what have the games industry being doing in the last twenty years. I think big publishers becoming more risk adverse has played a part but also I think the PC hardware has outstripped the ability of publishers to make full use of it within an acceptable budget. So let's say Elder Scrolls:6 ever gets released. The expectation is it will have more content than Skyrim and also modern graphics. That's a big ask even if they go for a £70 price tag which seems to be the current limit before people start thinking, erm that's a bit expensive isn't it. Currently I just don't see where the next leap in games is coming from to make really significant shifts to price and it being justified. I still remember in the days of the Speccy 48k when Ultimate released Sabre Wulf with a price of £9.99 when the standard was £4.99. There was a bit of grumbling but it was pretty much accepted as you were getting a lot of game compared to what was generally available.
When that's enough of my rambling.