Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
I'm still not buying this, and I'll give you another example. 3D... assuming it gets bigger, games that are stereoscopically correct will age better than those that aren't.
|
What's your favorite game to play in stereoscopic 3D today? In a few years, will that game have aged badly or play badly just because newer games come out that are more advanced technologically? Does that make it not a good game anylonger?
If you can't enjoy a game in the context of when it was made, then I suppose you will never understand my perspective.
I'm not going to buy a 1953 Corvette and go: "oh hey this sucks and hasn't aged well because it has no airbags". I'll think that it was an awesome car in it's time, unique from what is out there now, and that's what makes it a classic. If I look at a Ford Edsel, I would say: "well this car sucked when it was made, and it still sucks now".
There's no such thing as a game or any consumer product or film or art that ages badly. It's all in your head and how you look at it. I like old stuff and stuff that has aged precisely because it's different from what there is now. Like fine wine, for me, old things get better with time. The benefit of living in the future is that you have more of the past to consume. I'll gladly play Commodore 64, Amiga, Colecovision, Oddysey 2 (Oddysey 1 sucks!), NES, SMS, Genesis, vintage Arcade Games, etc. all day versus most of the new crap that comes out.
I'm not saying that Test Drive 1 is a better driving experience than Gran Turismo 5 will be. I'm just saying it's a different experience altogether that plays as well as it did when it first came out which is good or bad depending on the player.