Thread 11971716

What’s the difference between a game that didn’t age well and a game that was always shit but didn’t get recognized as such until much later?

>>11971716 (OP)
Super Mario Sunshine.

Whats the difference between a retarded zoomer faggot and someone who says "games age"? Hint: there is none

Zoomers are aging pretty badly ngl

>>11971716 (OP)
A game that didn't age well is one where you look at various design aspects and say "What the fuck were they thinking?". For example, Knights & Merchants's method of controlling your units is fucking garbage and makes the game frustrating as hell to play if you have played any other RTS worth a damn.

One that was always shit was one that had a lot of impressive tiny details, but that was just frosting on hardtack and the core game itself was fucking garbage, it only LOOKED good.

Technically there is none. If it "became" shit, then it has always been shit.
I think there are 2 major cases:
1) Something was acceptable or "cool" back in the day, but not now. Overlong JRPGs that play like "press A to win", games with tank controls, prerendered backgrounds, shitty voice acting and such were all acceptable, if not impressive, in the 90s. But making a game like this today would be ridiculed by most.
There are however cases where something isn't necessarily bad, but public sensibilities changed. This goes for virtually any overhated "hard/ grindy" game. Point n click games, FMV games and such weren't bad, they just fell out of fashion.
2) Some games simply enjoyed a ridiculous level of popularity, to the point they got a "plot armor", and once the dust settled criticism became more apparent. Titles like Sonic Adventure 2, FFVII, FFXII, GTA3, etc. aren't "shit" at all, but as their hype died down, a lot of people started being more objective than "DUDE IT'S NEW [game in popular series]!!!".