[quote name='007'] Why is it that games that people were perfectly happy with a decade ago are considering nigh unplayable now? Are gamers so coddled by pretty graphics now that it's beneath us to have to put up with things like jaggies, heavy fog, blocky people, and vague black shadows that are supposedly indictating a face? It's a hallmark of that generation and, with few exceptions, certainly doesn't make the game 'unplayable' now. [/quote]
Speaking only for myself, looks are not an issue except when it comes to frame rate and how the mechanics of the game engine affects the gameplay. If the game is a choppy mess, if control is difficult because the game can't keep up with you, if you die because of glitches, frame skips, terrible cameras, or 3D weirdness, then that's unplayable.
The PS1/Saturn/N64 era is one where the designers reached for things the hardware just wasn't able to accomplish well. Many of the ideas were good, but the execution was anywhere from decent to headache inducing.
Gamers put up with those things back in the day because there was no choice, unless you dropped a lot of money into a PC. You had the console -- many of the games were the best that the console could possibly do.
So I would qualify "unplayable" a bit -- there are a lot of games from this generation that aren't unplayable, but the options available now are so much better in every way.
So, I suppose my general question is... if GoldenEye hasn't aged well, why? What games would you say have aged well? What's changed in the past 10 years that makes you unable to enjoy the game as much as you did back then?
10 years of refinements to game design, maybe? The really good games learn from and build on what came before. 10 years of improved technology -- not for pretty graphics, but for engines that can actually implement what the game designers thought up. I remember the day when 30fps was considered the A+ gold standard and 60fps was an unachievable dream. Anything over 20fps was considered
good.
I won't speak for Goldeneye -- I never owned it. I remember trying it in a store on a demo unit at the time. I had a reasonable PC, and I found it clunky. But if I didn't have that PC, I'm sure my opinion would be very different.
An example of something that did age well is Sin & Punishment. It clearly looks like a N64 game, but the gameplay is smooth and fluid. I don't have any control problems, the frame rate doesn't make my eyes hurt, and the ideas in the game have been executed well. It is fun to play, period, and when playing it, I don't think of everything that's wrong with it. I just enjoy the game.
An example of something that did not age well is Burning Rangers. Bad control, bad framerate, and bad camera. The ideas behind the game are compelling, but the execution is lacking and it's hard not to think of everything that has been accomplished in 3D gaming since and how an updated game would be so much better. It's also hard to play knowing that I have plenty of similar games that follow through with their game concepts much better. Why wouldn't I go play Metroid Prime 3 instead?
I went and looked at some Burning Rangers reviews just now, just to see what people at the time said about it. Most were complementary, and talked about how good it was for a Saturn game. Impressive, even.
So yeah -- I don't want to bag on it too hard. It did the best it could, had some great ideas, and was a good experience for the time. But now? You could do so much better.
in' buy it.
