I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).

Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
differences between games of the various eras in which they were
released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.

So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games?
Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
'old' and notably different from a modern title?

The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.

Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the
industry?

Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?

* read it here yourself
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/were-in-the-era-of-the-perennial-game-plan-accordingly-opinion

On 4/7/2024 9:40 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
>
I think it is an indication that electronic games and the hardware to
run them have reached a certain maturity. The hardware has reached the
point where it can run any game that humans can create that can be
reasonably played by humans and do so with effectively any level of
graphics you want. As in I'm sure someone could write a "game" that was
so complex and resource demanding that current hardware could not run it
but it would also be so complex that a human couldn't actually "play" it.

Part of that is with the hardware and associated readily available
semi-standardized software to build a game with have greatly expanded
the pool of game makers. You can have individuals make pet project
games that sell (Stardew Valley is an example, I'm sure there are plenty
of others). The emergence of on-line game suppliers like Steam and GOG
are also major factors in that as games don't have to be acquired thru
limited supply chains that restrict how many games are available.

The "good" games of the past used to have to push the limits of the
hardware while also having good gameplay to be "good". Now, it just has
to have good gameplay and trying to push the hardware limits is actually
a detriment. Note how many games are "bug ridden" upon release, in part
because they try to do too much.

In short, do I really care if the graphics are hyper-photo-realistic
beyond reality to a degree that only 1% of the population can see the
difference or do I really care about the _game_ being enjoyable?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
>
> I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
> perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
> into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
> only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
> game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
> ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
> interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
>
> Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
> these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
> to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
> differences between games of the various eras in which they were
> released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
> whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
>
> So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
> meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games?
> Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
> exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
> 'old' and notably different from a modern title?
>
> The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
> 2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
> years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
> There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
> PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
> fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
> visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
> even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
> hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
> games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
> Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
> few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
> seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
>
> Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
> really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
> updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
> feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
> That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
> any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
> room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
> Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the
> industry?
>
> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * read it here yourself
> https://www.gamesindustry.biz/were-in-the-era-of-the-perennial-game-plan-accordingly-opinion

I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't
selling anymore or like around 2014?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 4/7/2024 11:20 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
>>
>> I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
>> perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
>> into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
>> only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
>> game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
>> ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
>> interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
>>
>> Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
>> these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
>> to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
>> differences between games of the various eras in which they were
>> released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
>> whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
>>
>> So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
>> meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games?
>> Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
>> exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
>> 'old' and notably different from a modern title?
>>
>> The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
>> 2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
>> years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
>> There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
>> PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
>> fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
>> visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
>> even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
>> hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
>> games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
>> Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
>> few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
>> seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
>>
>> Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
>> really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
>> updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
>> feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
>> That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
>> any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
>> room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
>> Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the
>> industry?
>>
>> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
>> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
>> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
>> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * read it here yourself
>> https://www.gamesindustry.biz/were-in-the-era-of-the-perennial-game-plan-accordingly-opinion
>
>
> I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't
> selling anymore or like around 2014?

I dunno, I would push that a bit further. Pre-2010 maybe, or 2008 even.
I think that's about the time where the games get... I don't want to say
bad, but maybe "noticeably different".
I wanna go into how you can notice with the use of wide-screen as the
default and other stuff, but those were the times when I was running
exclusively Linux on my machines and did not really follow gaming that
much.

On 07/04/2024 17:40, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
> perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
> into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
> only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
> game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
> ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
> interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
>
> Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
> these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
> to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
> differences between games of the various eras in which they were
> released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
> whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
>
> So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
> meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games?
> Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
> exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
> 'old' and notably different from a modern title?
>
> The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
> 2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
> years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
> There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
> PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
> fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
> visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
> even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
> hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
> games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
> Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
> few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
> seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
>
> Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
> really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
> updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
> feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
> That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
> any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
> room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
> Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the
> industry?
>
> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
>

Tricky one but using "meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct" I
would probably put this somewhere around the early 2000's. So taking as
an example FarCry:1, yeh the visuals aren't up to the standards of today
but I think they are perfectible serviceable. The mechanics, again not
the the same but I don't think they are that different. Fast forward to
Crysis and the graphics have taken a another big step that is more than
acceptable to me.

Going backwards a few years you have the likes of Planescape:Torment and
BG:1/2. Play them in their original form and they do look dated. Grab
the enhanced editions which are a lick of paint in terms of QoL and
graphics and for me that all goes away.

So where was I, oh yes I think more in terms of outdated and not just
old (personally I think anything over ten years is old) as to me that
makes more sense. Using that I feel it becomes quite hard to put a date
on it as it varies by genre.

As for what have the games industry being doing in the last twenty
years. I think big publishers becoming more risk adverse has played a
part but also I think the PC hardware has outstripped the ability of
publishers to make full use of it within an acceptable budget. So let's
say Elder Scrolls:6 ever gets released. The expectation is it will have
more content than Skyrim and also modern graphics. That's a big ask even
if they go for a £70 price tag which seems to be the current limit
before people start thinking, erm that's a bit expensive isn't it.
Currently I just don't see where the next leap in games is coming from
to make really significant shifts to price and it being justified. I
still remember in the days of the Speccy 48k when Ultimate released
Sabre Wulf with a price of £9.99 when the standard was £4.99. There was
a bit of grumbling but it was pretty much accepted as you were getting a
lot of game compared to what was generally available.

When that's enough of my rambling.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:20:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):

>> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
>> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
>> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
>> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?

>I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't
>selling anymore or like around 2014?

The 'not being sold anymore' is a pretty awesome delineation, I think.
I don't care if the game came out two weeks ago; if the publisher
chooses not to support it anymore, it's going directly into the 'old'
pile. ;-)

I don't like to classify games as "old", but the only games that feel
old to me are the ones categorised as "This game has not aged well".

Super mario World, released between 1990 and 1992 feels as fresh as
ever. Yet, I look at those mid-2000s games with the brown-yellow piss
look and the bloom effect, and it's like looking at bygone era from
another generation.

H1M3M <wipnoah@gmail.com> wrote at 14:08 this Monday (GMT):
> I don't like to classify games as "old", but the only games that feel
> old to me are the ones categorised as "This game has not aged well".
>
> Super mario World, released between 1990 and 1992 feels as fresh as
> ever. Yet, I look at those mid-2000s games with the brown-yellow piss
> look and the bloom effect, and it's like looking at bygone era from
> another generation.

Mario World is also brought back quite a bit by Nintendo, and it still
makes money..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 07:27 this Monday (GMT):
> On 4/7/2024 11:20 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
>>>
>>> I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
>>> perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
>>> into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
>>> only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
>>> game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
>>> ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
>>> interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
>>>
>>> Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
>>> these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
>>> to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
>>> differences between games of the various eras in which they were
>>> released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
>>> whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
>>>
>>> So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
>>> meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games?
>>> Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
>>> exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
>>> 'old' and notably different from a modern title?
>>>
>>> The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
>>> 2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
>>> years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
>>> There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
>>> PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
>>> fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
>>> visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
>>> even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
>>> hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
>>> games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
>>> Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
>>> few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
>>> seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
>>>
>>> Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
>>> really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
>>> updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
>>> feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
>>> That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
>>> any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
>>> room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?
>>> Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the
>>> industry?
>>>
>>> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
>>> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
>>> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
>>> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * read it here yourself
>>> https://www.gamesindustry.biz/were-in-the-era-of-the-perennial-game-plan-accordingly-opinion
>>
>>
>> I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't
>> selling anymore or like around 2014?
>
> I dunno, I would push that a bit further. Pre-2010 maybe, or 2008 even.
> I think that's about the time where the games get... I don't want to say
> bad, but maybe "noticeably different".
> I wanna go into how you can notice with the use of wide-screen as the
> default and other stuff, but those were the times when I was running
> exclusively Linux on my machines and did not really follow gaming that
> much.

Mmmmmaybe. I guess then stuff before I started playing games (DS/Wii
era)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 13:36 this Monday (GMT):
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:20:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
>
>>> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
>>> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
>>> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
>>> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
>
>
>
>>I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't
>>selling anymore or like around 2014?
>
> The 'not being sold anymore' is a pretty awesome delineation, I think.
> I don't care if the game came out two weeks ago; if the publisher
> chooses not to support it anymore, it's going directly into the 'old'
> pile. ;-)
>

YES, I am so upset how fast games get delisted/shut down these days..

On a related note, 3DS/WiiU servers are being shut down today.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 4/8/2024 3:36 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:20:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
>
>>> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
>>> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
>>> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
>>> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
>
>
>
>> I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't
>> selling anymore or like around 2014?
>
> The 'not being sold anymore' is a pretty awesome delineation, I think.
> I don't care if the game came out two weeks ago; if the publisher
> chooses not to support it anymore, it's going directly into the 'old'
> pile. ;-)
>
>

Well, that's more abandoned than old, isn't it?

Wasn't there a game recently that got delisted a month after coming out?

On 4/7/2024 9:40 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> I recently read an editorial* suggesting that changes in how we
> perceive the age of our games means publishers will need to take this
> into account when selling new titles. It used to be that 'new' games
> only had to compete with other recently released titles, but now a
> game released in 2024 will also be competing against games released
> ten years prior, because they are still considered fresh and
> interesting (see, for example, the continued longevity of GTA5).
>
> Which is all very interesting, but I was taken more by its question:
> these days, when is a game considered 'old' anymore? Because it used
> to be quite obvious; technological changes made for distinct
> differences between games of the various eras in which they were
> released, whether that was 8-bit, 16-bit, CD-ROM, early 3D, or
> whenever. But it's getting a lot harder to tell these days.
>
> So where do we draw the line between "oh man, that game is old!",
> meaning it is visually or mechanically distinct from 'modern' games?
> Obviously this is a very subjective and there will always be
> exceptions to the rule, but how far back before you consider a game
> 'old' and notably different from a modern title?
>
> The article in question suggests that going as far back as Playstation
> 2/XBox (original) may be necessary: that games as far back as twenty
> years ago are still 'newish'. And I think that's a fair division.
> There are many games of that era - whether it's "The Last of Us" on
> PS3, "Mass Effect" on XBox 360, or "Left4Dead" on PC that still feel
> fresh and modern. The biggest deficiencies in these games are usually
> visual (usually with regards to the lower-resolution textures) and
> even that's forgivable. The gameplay, no longer restricted by older
> hardware, remains strong in all those titles. In direct comparison,
> games like "Tomb Raider: Legends", "Star Wars: Knights of the Old
> Republic" or "Unreal II" feel much more limited, despite only being a
> few years older. So the division between 6th and 7th generation does
> seem an applicable boundary between 'old' and 'new'.
>
> Of course, that also brings into question: what has the game industry
> really been doing in the past twenty years, that despite two platform
> updates since, games released in the late 2000s and early 2010s still
> feel competitive to the newest titles? Is it that we're just in a rut?
> That we, as costumers, aren't demanding better and simply accepting of
> any old shit that comes down the line? Is it possible there's just no
> room for innovation, that all the good ideas have already been tried?

Nope nope nope. Plenty of new and good ideas and resurrected old ideas,
just not with the major studios. They just buy up everyone and turn
them to the same old shit when the programers inevitably leave. Only
now they add MTX enshitifying the games.

> Or are we all just waiting for the next big idea to revolutionize the
> industry?
>
> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?

We're the wrong place to ask that.

~20 years seems about right to me as well. Especially if you throw in
the actual remasters that improve visuals and feel, which sadly are the
minority.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 14:15 this Monday (GMT):
> On 4/8/2024 3:36 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:20:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
>> <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>>> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 16:40 this Sunday (GMT):
>>
>>>> Where would you put this division between 'new' and old? Do you find
>>>> PS3/XBox360/2010 PC games still eminently playable? Do you draw the
>>>> line at anything older than 10th generation? Do you turn your nose up
>>>> at anything not released this year? Where does 'old' begin for you?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I know that "old" is finnicky but my definition is either the game isn't
>>> selling anymore or like around 2014?
>>
>> The 'not being sold anymore' is a pretty awesome delineation, I think.
>> I don't care if the game came out two weeks ago; if the publisher
>> chooses not to support it anymore, it's going directly into the 'old'
>> pile. ;-)
>>
>>
>
> Well, that's more abandoned than old, isn't it?
>
> Wasn't there a game recently that got delisted a month after coming out?

Would not be suprised.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 4/8/2024 7:08 AM, H1M3M wrote:
> I don't like to classify games as "old", but the only games that feel
> old to me are the ones categorised as "This game has not aged well".

Yeah, that's a better metric. I'm trying to think of games I enjoyed or
re-enjoyed as much as I did when I first played them that are of
drinking age. I just replayed Rastan and thoroughly enjoyed it up to
the point I never did get past. That's from 1987, yes it's an arcade
game, and I played it on Mame, but I still think it's awesome.

I'd say that' objectively old, but it still holds up comparing to modern
indy platformers, in fact I'd say it's still better than almost any I've
played. It's mercifully short to get to the point of no return, so I
don't get tired of it in an attempt as well.

On the other side, The Iso Fallouts just don't do it for me anymore, nor
does Master of Magic or Pool of Radiance even though they were at one
time my favorites.

> Super mario World, released between 1990 and 1992 feels as fresh as
> ever. Yet, I look at those mid-2000s games with the brown-yellow piss
> look and the bloom effect, and it's like looking at bygone era from
> another generation.

Ugh, bloom, I hated it even then.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
cartridge) you still have for a game?

I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
game was when I purchased it).

On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
games definitely fall into that last category.

But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...

On 4/8/2024 2:09 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
> cartridge) you still have for a game?
>
> I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
> it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
> far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
> game was when I purchased it).
>
> On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
> then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
> space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
> games definitely fall into that last category.
>
> But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
> pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
> up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
> my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
> saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
> magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
> or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...

I still have "Elite Gold Edition for IBM/Tandy PC and Compatibles
(512k)" on 5 & 1/4" floppy in the box with the manuals, it says it's on
cassette too, but that's missing. I bought it used at half price marked
down from $14.95 god knows how long ago from "Computertime" according to
the dot matrix price sticker.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 21:09 this Monday (GMT):
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
> cartridge) you still have for a game?
>
> I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
> it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
> far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
> game was when I purchased it).
>
> On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
> then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
> space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
> games definitely fall into that last category.
>
> But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
> pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
> up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
> my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
> saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
> magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
> or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...
>
>
>
>
>
>

If single-game handhelds count, I think I have some Tiger
Electronics-esque ones somewhere. Otherwise, probably one of my NDS
cartridges..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 4/8/2024 11:09 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
> cartridge) you still have for a game?
>
> I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
> it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
> far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
> game was when I purchased it).
>
> On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
> then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
> space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
> games definitely fall into that last category.
>
> But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
> pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
> up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
> my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
> saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
> magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
> or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...
>

Similar to that I have some old programming books in storage at my
parents' house which have listings for some games.

The oldest other stuff would be some old Sega Master System games, the
oldest most likely being California Games from 1989.

The oldest PC game I have physical media off would be Battletech: The
Crescent Hawk's Revenge from 1990. I once bought this in a grab box in
the shop, and I think someone had already played it and returned it
later, as it gave my computer it's first virus.

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:09:57 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
>cartridge) you still have for a game?

Quick glance....

I think the oldest for me on the PC at least is tied between Wizardry
1 and Might & Magic 1 - Copyright 1987 - 5 1/4 Floppies.

But the oldest I can quickly tell is Questron on the C-64, 5 1/4
Floppies, Copyright 1983

But I have a lot more C-64 games stored away in bins in my garage,
including many Infocom titles. They are probably even older.

On 09/04/2024 08:23, Kyonshi wrote:
> On 4/8/2024 11:09 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
>> cartridge) you still have for a game?
>>
>> I still have a 5.25" floppy disk for Infocom's "Hitchhiker's Guide to
>> the Galaxy" for the Apple II lying around somewhere. I've no idea if
>> it still works, though. According to Mobygames, that dates it to as
>> far back as 1984 (although, honestly, I can't remember how 'new' the
>> game was when I purchased it).
>>
>> On PC, that honor probably goes to "Ultima VI" (1990). I imaged (and
>> then discarded) most of my floppy disks years ago in order to make
>> space and only kept the disks for a handful of favorites. The Ultima
>> games definitely fall into that last category.
>>
>> But I think the oldest video game 'media' I still have are the faded
>> pages ripped from some magazine that listed the Basic code that made
>> up a really primitive 'Star Trek' game. I dutifully typed it out into
>> my 8-bit and was immediately disappointed by the results. The disk I
>> saved the code to is long gone, but for some reason I hung onto the
>> magazine pages. It's yellowed and crinkly and probably missing a page
>> or three, but it's still buried in the closet somewhere...
>>
>
> Similar to that I have some old programming books in storage at my
> parents' house which have listings for some games.
>
> The oldest other stuff would be some old Sega Master System games, the
> oldest most likely being California Games from 1989.
>
> The oldest PC game I have physical media off would be Battletech: The
> Crescent Hawk's Revenge from 1990. I once bought this in a grab box in
> the shop, and I think someone had already played it and returned it
> later, as it gave my computer it's first virus.
>

The oldest I still have for programming is a 68000 book from 1988. I
must have lost my Speccy 48k assembler programming book in my many moves
before I did the sensible thing and bought a house.

This site takes me back a bit though.

https://worldofspectrum.org/archive/magazines/sinclair-programs

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 22:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
<candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 21:09 this Monday (GMT):

>
>If single-game handhelds count, I think I have some Tiger
>Electronics-esque ones somewhere. Otherwise, probably one of my NDS
>cartridges..

Ooh, I hadn't considered those.

I'm not sure it's older than my "Hitchhiker's Guide" disk, but it's
ofthe same era: I have an Nintendo "Game & Watch" with an LCD screen
where Mickey Mouse tries to catch eggs (a gift from a well-meaning
relative).

Well, I say I still have it, but honestly, I don't know. I didn't get
rid of it, but I've no idea where I have stashed it. I haven't seen it
in years. It still worked last time I tried, although that probably
speaks more of the robustness of the coin-cell batteries than the
device. ;-)

I had a love-hate affair with that game. It was the most tedious game
I've ever played, but it was also the only hand-held game I owned for
decades. So it inevitably got tossed into the bag - and played -
whenever I knew I would otherwise be stuck somewhere doing nothing.

Eventually I replaced the device with a Palm Pilot hand-held, which
not only had a greater variety (and depth!) of games that could be
loaded onto it, but apps and books that could entertain me when I
tired of the games.

On 4/9/2024 6:07 AM, Mike S. wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:09:57 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
>> cartridge) you still have for a game?
>
> Quick glance....
>
> I think the oldest for me on the PC at least is tied between Wizardry
> 1 and Might & Magic 1 - Copyright 1987 - 5 1/4 Floppies.
>
> But the oldest I can quickly tell is Questron on the C-64, 5 1/4
> Floppies, Copyright 1983

You beat me there! Elite was copyright 1984 & 1985 by Acornsoft, though
the box says it's made by Firebird.

I don't have any way to use it, I haven't had a 5 1/4" drive for
probably more than a decade.

>
> But I have a lot more C-64 games stored away in bins in my garage,
> including many Infocom titles. They are probably even older.

Unfortunately my Intellivision, C-64, and Kaypro are long gone,traded
off or sold for something else I don't remember.

I do have a Dungeons & Dragons Computer Labyrinth Game from 1980 that
still worked the last time I dusted it off, though I had to press rather
hard for it to register piece moves.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:23:30 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/8/2024 11:09 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 09:27:05 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On a related note: what's the oldest media (tape, floppy, cd-rom,
>> cartridge) you still have for a game?

>The oldest PC game I have physical media off would be Battletech: The
>Crescent Hawk's Revenge from 1990. I once bought this in a grab box in
>the shop, and I think someone had already played it and returned it
>later, as it gave my computer it's first virus.

You weren't missing anything. "Revenge" wasn't a very fun game, from
what I recall. Its combat was slow and tedious, but also lacked the
depth and versatility of the tabletop game. And its story wasn't very
engaging. It was one of Westwood Games (of "Eye of the Beholder" and
"Command & Conquer" fame) earliest titles though, and one of the last
games to sport the Infocom branding.

I've had similar experiences from that era of returned PC games being
sold 'as new' (although without the 'fun' of paying for a virus ;-).
Too many store owners were extremely confrontational when called on
it, too.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 14:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 22:30:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07
><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote at 21:09 this Monday (GMT):
>
>
>>
>>If single-game handhelds count, I think I have some Tiger
>>Electronics-esque ones somewhere. Otherwise, probably one of my NDS
>>cartridges..
>
> Ooh, I hadn't considered those.
>
> I'm not sure it's older than my "Hitchhiker's Guide" disk, but it's
> ofthe same era: I have an Nintendo "Game & Watch" with an LCD screen
> where Mickey Mouse tries to catch eggs (a gift from a well-meaning
> relative).
>
> Well, I say I still have it, but honestly, I don't know. I didn't get
> rid of it, but I've no idea where I have stashed it. I haven't seen it
> in years. It still worked last time I tried, although that probably
> speaks more of the robustness of the coin-cell batteries than the
> device. ;-)
>
> I had a love-hate affair with that game. It was the most tedious game
> I've ever played, but it was also the only hand-held game I owned for
> decades. So it inevitably got tossed into the bag - and played -
> whenever I knew I would otherwise be stuck somewhere doing nothing.
>
> Eventually I replaced the device with a Palm Pilot hand-held, which
> not only had a greater variety (and depth!) of games that could be
> loaded onto it, but apps and books that could entertain me when I
> tired of the games.

Sounds cool!! I also forgot I used to have a leapfrog.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 07:25:49 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Unfortunately my Intellivision, C-64, and Kaypro are long gone,traded
>off or sold for something else I don't remember.

I owned an Intellivsion as well. But I no longer have it or any the
cartridges for it. My oldest owned games would have been my Atari 2600
cartridges but they too are long gone.