Poll of the Day > "Ancient - it was released over 20 years ago"

(+) Yeah! (+)

You all realize that 20 years ago was 1998 right?

Ocarina of time is not "ancient"

Im pretty sure 20 years ago was much further back than that, closer to the 1960s
---

In order for a game to be called "ancient" it should be at least as old as "Spacewar!".

Technically it should date back to at least 500 CE if not earlier.
---

Half-Life was released in 1998.
---

Ocarina of Time is pretty ancient now. Not as ancient as Pong, obviously, but still old enough that calling it ancient (by game standards) isn't unreasonable. Face it: you're old.
---

Stop buying old games guys they are ancient buy new games only pretty please? - Every AAA game developer
---

Yeah. I don't particularly like the periodization scheme used in this poll. Even if you only consider home console gaming, that goes back to the early-to-mid 1970s. Classifying anything more than 20 years old (i.e. before 1998) effectively makes more than half of home video gaming history "ancient."
---

Deganawidah posted...

Yeah. I don't particularly like the periodization scheme used in this poll. Even if you only consider home console gaming, that goes back to the early-to-mid 1970s. Classifying anything more than 20 years old (i.e. before 1998) effectively makes more than half of home video gaming history "ancient."

We consider well more than half of human history ancient.
---

20 years is a long time to kids. when I was a kid in the 80's, the 60's sounded like forever ago. but now, I realize that 20 years isn't that much time. to a modern kid, they do think of the 90's as ancient time

Blightzkrieg posted...

Deganawidah posted...

Yeah. I don't particularly like the periodization scheme used in this poll. Even if you only consider home console gaming, that goes back to the early-to-mid 1970s. Classifying anything more than 20 years old (i.e. before 1998) effectively makes more than half of home video gaming history "ancient."

We consider well more than half of human history ancient.

True. But that is much longer and much less documented. Still, your point is valid. I guess I should restate my objection. The actual word used is less of an issue than the fact that everything before 1998 is lumped together. There is quite a difference between games made in the mid 90s, early 90s, and mid-to-late 80s, let alone earlier eras. I would say the differences between these arguably are at least as meaningful if not more so than differences within the more recent years.
---

10 years ago, I think they would have referred to then 20 year old games as "ancient" as well.
---

Yeah, sure, grandpa. Videogames evolved fast. A 20 year old game sure as hell is ancient.
---

SonGaton posted...

Yeah, sure, grandpa. Videogames evolved fast. A 20 year old game sure as hell is ancient.

The just between ps1 and ps2 is huge compared to jump between ps3 and ps4
---

context is everything. for a technology to be 20 years old, it is considered ancient

green dragon posted...

context is everything. for a technology to be 20 years old, it is considered ancient

I disagree.

We need to stop playing fast and loose with language like we are all manipulative sales people.
---

bulbinking posted...

green dragon posted...

context is everything. for a technology to be 20 years old, it is considered ancient

I disagree.

We need to stop playing fast and loose with language like we are all manipulative sales people.

Ancient is a fast and loose term.
---

Ancient is relative. 20 years is like half the history of video gaming.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

bulbinking posted...

green dragon posted...

context is everything. for a technology to be 20 years old, it is considered ancient

I disagree.

We need to stop playing fast and loose with language like we are all manipulative sales people.

Ancient is a fast and loose term.

When its not being applied in the original definion of the word and is instead being used for dramatic effect to push a particular idea or opinion, yes.

Unless its a couple hundred years old its not ancient and ancient things can be cool too, so I dont get why people would even try to use it as a means to smear anything unless you are a bugmen who cares about being relevant for relevancy sake.
---

@Mead posted...

Im pretty sure 20 years ago was much further back than that, closer to the 1960s

why is this so funny
---

with a book, 20 years old is just old.

but technology? yeah, 20 years is ancient.

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
---

helIy posted...

with a book, 20 years old is just old.

but technology? yeah, 20 years is ancient.

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.
---

i had to stop and think to realize i have been playing tetris ds for over 12 years already.
---

bulbinking posted...

helIy posted...

with a book, 20 years old is just old.

but technology? yeah, 20 years is ancient.

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
---

helIy posted...

bulbinking posted...

helIy posted...

with a book, 20 years old is just old.

but technology? yeah, 20 years is ancient.

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.
---

I hear there are fossil records of 20 years ago, but they're buried under the sands of time.
---

i was talking about how far technology has come in 20 years you daft weirdo.

that was it. that was all my point was. you missed it completely
---

Yea I get it. I'm fucking old. We're all fucking old at this point. We're no longer the target demographic for gaming and honestly haven't been for around 10 years tbh.
---

Judgmenl posted...

Yea I get it. I'm fucking old. We're all fucking old at this point. We're no longer the target demographic for gaming and honestly haven't been for around 10 years tbh.

The demo isn't necessarily just kids, tbh. And the average gamer age is a lot older than people assume, probably because a lot of gamers didn't ditch the habit when they aged (even if many slowed down).
---

https://imgur.com/Hknix0i
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

https://imgur.com/Hknix0i

I really wish "ancient gamer" included something that came out before I graduated high school. I get that I'm old and all, and that that's pretty exaggerated, but it's still really twisting the knife.
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

https://imgur.com/Hknix0i

a majority of those are filthy casual games

adjl posted...

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

https://imgur.com/Hknix0i

I really wish "ancient gamer" included something that came out before I graduated high school. I get that I'm old and all, and that that's pretty exaggerated, but it's still really twisting the knife.

tbh, they should have included the Cesar Romero Joker and listed far older stuff.
---

Zeus posted...

adjl posted...

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

https://imgur.com/Hknix0i

I really wish "ancient gamer" included something that came out before I graduated high school. I get that I'm old and all, and that that's pretty exaggerated, but it's still really twisting the knife.

tbh, they should have included the Cesar Romero Joker and listed far older stuff.

List was made by a casual. Casuals dont even know of the real classics like quake and grim fandango. I feel like kids these days would barf at pitfall on atari 2600 and THAT is deserving of an ancient title.
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

https://imgur.com/Hknix0i

*cringes*
---