in 20 years, we went from mostly 2d and rudimentary 3d sprites, to full blown vr in ultra HD hyper realistic polygons.
we went from phones the size of bricks that could barely text to personal super computers as thin as a few coins stacked together.
tvs that weighed several. hundred pounds to output not even a 480i image, to gigantic tvs you can lift with a finger that output in 4k
So we can call indie games that use sprites and mimick games from SNES as ancient because they look/play almost exactly the same as the ancient games?
If somebody sculpts a naked human form from marble in the modern day is it also considered ancient as its one of the first forms of higher art?
I think videogames and movies/tv straddle a line between technology and art and while in the most materialistic sense we can objectively judge the ages of the machines we experience the art, the art itself can be timeless like many other works of art are considered to be, and thus labeling any game as ancient on surface value of the age when it was produced is very narrow minded.
Games should be judged on their ideas and gameplay, not their hardware or social impact.
you really missed the point of what I said by like 9294 miles
You were comparing art to the advancements in mediums used to display said art.
I dont think you understood my rant. I understood you perfectly.
What makes a game old?
That is a complex question nobody cares about and industry doesnt like to discuss as it relies on people consuming games like products instead of veiwing them like books or paintings.
Even TV and movies are beginning to struggle as recording tech has reached the point enough people can see its all rehashed concepts that try to feel new by altering the material elements of the art to stay relevant.
Songs and plays used to have a much linger shelflife before we turned into a consumer basic economy. Its sad how quickly we forget our games just because a new one comes out thats only slightly different. ---