What makes a game age well?

[Sim Kid]

What do you guys think makes a game hold up years down the road?

I believe it's a combination of things. One thing would be the familiarity of controls, since you can pick up and play it and not have any issues because you're used to other sets of controls. But that's only one thing.

[Dizzy]

One rule is that it must have engaging and unique themes throughout.

[Marilink]

The same kinds of things that make a book re-readable. It has to be good enough to make you want to play it again, and since you're taking extra time to play it, it has to engage you each and every time.

If we're talking about strictly aging and not re-playing, then the game just really has to be entertaining to the person playing it. It's kind of a subjective thing--I would say SMW has aged very well, others wouldn't.

[Robotazy]

For me, what makes a game age well is if doesn't use the gimmicks that past generations enjoyed that we've grown out of as a society. Like Extreme Difficulty in the NES Era, or Stupid 3rd Person Controls in the PS1-N64 era.

[Cosmonautical]

Tazy, I'm not sure poor controls, or even cranked-up difficulty count as gimmicks.

That's sort of the right direction, though. To create a game that feels fresh and ages well, you generally need to ignore trends and focus on your own dynamics. An intuitive control system is necessary. So should be immediate entertainment value, with a level of depth accessible to more experienced players.

Simply being new to a game should not feel as though you are being punished, failure should encourage you to play more and do better.

Art direction shouldn't focus on new technological tricks, but apply what can be done to best suit a concise visual style.

It's generally best to avoid using pop/radio/mainstream genres of music, especially if it is current, if you want a game to age gracefully (this applies doubly so to songs with lyrics).

[Ace Mercury]

I'm thinking that any good game ages well? I'm trying to think of any counter-examples, but nothing really springs into mind. When I say "good game", I mean games which are fun to play, not their significance in video gaming history.

[Marilink]

^Yeah, it's a pretty subjective thing. There are games that have been surpassed and improved upon, though. You'd be hard pressed to find someone tell you that Goldeneye 64 aged well. Still fun to play, but the FPS genre has really evolved since then.

[thevideogamecollector]

I like to have a good selection of fighting games street fighter ii for snes still gets lots of playtime in our house. i think multiplayers always age well.

[CapitaineGame]

Atmosphere i'd say, that is why FF7 is still so loved.

[monstrman]

It really depends on the type of game you're talking about.

Fighting games with good controls and a unique selection of characters (and aren't called blazblue) generally can age pretty well by themselves

RPGs either have to have multiple ways for the story to unfold (much like in fable, radiata stories, etc), great character customization, or an engaging and interesting style of gameplay.

Shooters are gonna do what shooters do until the end of time because they have enough replay value simply because guns.

Hack and Slashes are fun because they're often akin to RPGs, but they don't have that cluttered turn based feel to them.

Also good level designs are a huge factor, as well as having very little apparent "false difficulty".

[lamarwisneski]

Hello Sim ,

Adventure and strategy games age well becasue graphics is not all that important. X-COM and Laser Squad are still great... So is the original Civilization... I can also play Leisure Suit Larry or Monkey Island forever... That will never be old for me... Or something like tetris. Can be in text mode, yet still addictive as hell!

[Cravdraa]

First off, the gameplay has to be solid, and the game has to be fun. It has to present a complete concept that's not held back by the technical limitations of the time.

Games that try to push this limitation too much, either conceptually or graphicly, don't age well. As soon as the next big thing comes out, they get surpassed and start looking like an incomplete product.

Graphically, the game needs to look complete. The PS1/N64 era has a lot of games that have aged horribly because the technology wasn't there to do realistic graphics yet. Poor textures, low resolution, low poly count, low frame rate. These things were accepted at the time because it was all that was available, but they fall flat by modern comparisions. Simplicity and a fully realized style are needed to keep a game looking decent in years to come. Compare Goldeneye to Kirby 64. Goldeneye looks terrible by modern standards. Kirby 64's simple style, however, was much more fully realized, and as such, while it may look a little primitive, it's still pleasing to the eye. Paper Mario is another good example. It looked pretty much exactly like what it was supposed to look like. Updating the graphics could raise the res a bit and maybe improve some textures here or there, but it wouldn't make the game look any more complete.
This is why games with realistic graphics tend to age poorly. The level of technology is only just starting to get there. Even now, most games that try for it, will still be noticable surpassed in the next few years, and that ages them. It's not that realisitic graphics age poorly, it that they're still incomplete.

Finally, there's culture. The more a game relies on current day culture, the faster it's going to feel dated. If you draw on current day events and you're making the emotions, humor, and culture of them part of your game. It will have the immediate effect of drawing your players into the game a little more, and helping them "complete" the game experience themselves. But as soon as that culture changes, the connection is lost, and because it was relying on that connection for it's presentation, the game then become an incomplete experience. It is however, possible to draw from outside sources, as long as they're stable ones. Games that try to emulate a specific era or setting, like midieval times are much more reliable because the social view of then changes much more slowly, and because they're in essence charactures of those time periods than don't need to be as precise. The players are much more accepting of the inconsistancies because they have a more or less fixed idea of what they were like, and didn't actually live them.

So to sum it all up, it's actually all the same concept.
A game that ages well is a game that presents a complete package, graphically, socially, and gameplay wise. Things that can't be markedly improved, and things that the audience's perception of won't change over time.

I think it's important to note, that a game that won't age well isn't a bad game just because of that. A game with cutting edge graphics, that makes lots of witty references to current events, with gameplay that still has room to be taken to the next level can still be a real joy to play.
It just won't age well.
But I think those sorts of games are still just as important to devloping new ideas and advancing the industry.

[Sim Kid]

I like how you mentioned Culture, Crav. I do think an era probably can help make a game age well or contribute to how it's remembered. Duke Nukem Forever would have fared much better if it were released in the late 90s or early 00s, when we hadn't been spoiled by stuff that filled the void left by Duke Nukem.

[Cosmonautical]

Culture is a good way to address what I touched on with "current or mainstream" music. Personally, I prefer games that don't take themselves seriously. DNF entertained me greatly, though, and I honestly find it much more engaging that some standard military sim. The problem is reaching the audience - are the 13 year olds that played Duke 3D going to be the same people when they buy DNF? Were they all the same people to start with?

A good handful of them were just there for the smut and the interactive levels. Even DNF is a clear parody of portrayals of game characters and heroes in mainstream culture, but it both was not polished enough and was too indirect to establish that. The ignorant mainstream will look at it as a cash-grab-with-tits, because the franchise won't beat them over the head with it thoroughly enough.

In 2012, Duke isn't extreme enough to be a parody of the negative qualities in media and culture. Even the people publishing it can't figure out that it's not actually made for womanizers.

Of course, it also did commit a cardinal franchise sin, and became too meta. It's parodying Duke Nukem in a big way, and even the people who played the series don't pick up on the haphazard cues.

[lamarwisneski]

Games are a matter of taste..!! In my opinion, these are the requirements a game needs in order to be successful and fun Originality, Freshness,Replay Value, Surprise or entertainment, Equal opportunity or winning chances ,Creative control/player influence and Consistency..!!