Re: When Is A Game Old?

On 4/7/2024 9:40 AM, 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?

Nope nope nope.  Plenty of new and good ideas and resurrected old ideas, just not with the major studios.  They just buy up everyone and turn them to the same old shit when the programers inevitably leave.  Only now they add MTX enshitifying the games.

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?

We're the wrong place to ask that.
~20 years seems about right to me as well.  Especially if you throw in the actual remasters that improve visuals and feel, which sadly are the minority.
--
-Justisaur
  ø-ø
(\_/)\
  `-'\ `--.___,
   ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
        \
        ^'