I feel that this could go for most forms of media, but this is /v/, so do you think games should be held to modern standards or the standards of when they were made? Pic def related.
>>337148245
Judging by period standards determines if a game is good.
Judging by modern standards determines if you should replay it.
Both.
>>337148568
/thread
Both and which you use depends on the question being asked.
>Does x hold up
Modern
>Was y a good game
No, pokemon sucks
>>337148245
Graphics should be judged by art direction and aesthetics, and not by technology.
Everything else is timeless (music, story, gameplay) and should be held to the same standard.
>should games be judged
no, its just an entertainment product
Modern, because good games have gameplay that holds up 5, 10 or 20 years later.
>>337148958
you're telling me you don't go into a movie hoping it's gonna be good because it's only entertainment?
>>337148568
Additionally, the latter is what's meant by if a game has "aged". If a game is still good by modern standards, then it hasn't aged.
>get told in threads leading up to Star Fox Zero that you shouldn't judge games based on the time they came out in
gotta love nintenyearold delusion. People really need to take a step back and as objectively as they can separate themselves from their nostalgia to evaluate the game if they care to. So many people live in the past and if they tried playing some older games again they'd hate them.
>>337148245
I feel like it should be a little of both.
This anon has the right idea:
>>337148813
But I feel like there would be instances where this could be considered unfair. Oftentimes, there is a story behind most every media in development. You couldn't blame, say, Metroid for using a password system instead of a battery back up because Nintendo had to make concessions and decide where to cut what. It's a similar case with the movie Clerks; can you really blame the guy for filming it in black and white? He had literally no budget and sold his comic book collection just to fund the movie.
Of course, that being said, a bad game will still be a bad game, regardless of the situation. It's just important to consider factors such as the game's year and budget. I feel that price is also a very important point as it's pretty dumb to compare a $5 game with a $50 one.
>>337150946
That depends on whether you want to make a fair assessment of the developer's skill (keeping in mind their handicaps like budget or hardware), or want to decide how fun/good is the game by itself. Most people are interested in the latter.
>>337151579
I suppose that's true. In the long run, a product is a product, simple as that. I guess that considerations should be stated if they're going to be taken into account. Like:
>Yeah, this game sucks but keep in mind that the development team is fresh out of school and it's only $5. With that mind, it's not half bad.
But regardless, if a game sucks then it still sucks, period.
