>>724534376
>Your perception was simply wrong. And your perception can be wrong now, too.
this is a remarkably shallow understanding of reality. let me ctrl+v my last response to someone (probably you) who said "games don't age".

>Everything ages, nothing is free from the tides of time. Everything crumbles to dust in the end.
>Anyways, in the context of games, saying something didn't "age" well means that it now exists in a different context to when it originally released and does not look as favorable in the current context as it did when it released in its original context. Stop pretending anything exists in a vacuum and is totally isolated from any reality surrounding it. Things are not judged solely on their own merits, they are measured comparatively to the things they are competing against (and two separate games are competing for your time and attention). Stop being obtuse, everyone knows what is meant by "it didn't age well" and you could have made your point about you getting older without making it about a phrase that everyone else understands, uses completely appropriately, and doesn't put as much thought or care into at all.

your perception is the context in which a game exists. context always changes. you cannot change the fact that context is always changing. how you relate to a work changes as you change and experience more of reality. this does not mean your perception was "wrong", that implies objectivity to morality and taste. that is an extremely conceited and stupid way of viewing reality, but i guess i should expect that from a stunted manchild like yourself.