Can someone tell me how a game aging poorly makes it bad? Half-Life, Super Mario 64...

that gif is Modern Sonic... (but he's in the Mania art style tho, I get your point)

In all my years I have never seen a single rational argument in favor of boost over classic, but I have seen plenty of the opposite. Modernbabbies prove again and again they're the dumbest most irrational part of the fandom next to SatAM fans.

>Sonic fans don't have working braincells
FTFY

That's not even Classic Sonic or Mania related. Rent free by the way.

Attached: EWYxrSUX0AAkx6w.jpg (3120x3787, 595.61K)

>or Mania related
it's in the Mania-style, Adventurefaggot

Super Mario 64 still generally holds up in most ways, with a few marginally janky details. Sonic Adventure is a bug filled jank fest that was already succeeded by much cleaner, better designed 3D platformers made around the same time (Spyro, Banjo Kazooie, and Super Mario 64 itself). I was around for all of it, but you being a zoomer still have no excuse since you can check the games yourself by emulation.

boost is literally classic game play except you have infinite power sneakers

The only problem with boost is the level design and there is very little to stop in your tracks.

also, don't erafag me. I was just giving you a reason like you wanted.

I think it just means that it's harder to get back into/ get into for the first time. Take Atari games for an example. You sit a zoomer down in front of the greatest Atari game of all time, they're likely to put down the controller in 5 seconds and call it shit. Now, that doesn't mean that the game is bad, it just means the general perception of what is a good game has shifted to something else.

>Yes it was, and so was Sonic Adventure.
I like SA1, I'm a diehard Sonic fag, and I played it well before games like Mario 64 or Zelda, but I wouldn't call it up to standard with games like those, both in its design, and it its technical proficiency. Games like Mario and Zelda only further highlight how janky SA1 is by comparison, especially when those games came out BEFORE it. I have a hard time considering it well made.

Because Jumping Flash was so mindblowing. Crash, Spyro, and Mario 64 were the first 3D platformers for the majority of kids at the time. My first impression wasn't that the camera was shit, like someone who'd been introduced to Mario 64 today.

>Half-Life, Super Mario 64, etc aged poorly
No they didn't. Aging poorly is something like Goldeneye 007 or any NES RPG.

>boost is literally classic game play
Thanks for being an example of what I'm talking about.
Boost is butchered classic gameplay. Most of the vital physics and dynamics are gone. Complex features like loops are automated by cutscenes and various gimmicks like boosters and boost rings override Sonic's natural movement. It's filled with nonsense like QTEs.
>except you have infinite power sneakers
Power sneakers increase acceleration and top speed. Boost forcibly sustains max speed. Entirely different.
>The only problem with boost is the level design
Boost in its entirety is antithetical to Sonic's game design.

Attached: artificial momentum.png (800x450, 27.76K)

>boost is literally classic game play except you have infinite power sneakers
actually kill yourself you ignorant uncultured swine

Attached: 7f7.jpg (480x360, 17.74K)

unlike mario 64 or half life, sa1's technical shortcomings make the game less enjoyable
the camera is so shit that it actively impedes you at points
the collision system doesn't do it's job very well (in the gamecube/pc ports mostly, but people pretend that the dreamcast version doesn't exist)
the scripted sequences aren't very spectacular anymore, so they just become 10 seconds of wasted time to pad out a level

Attached: shrug.png (1024x1301, 622.63K)

I would consider SA1 a well made sonic game with several questionable decisions by the developers. As for it being buggy it was honestly what I'd expect for games of that era (SA1 not DX) and of my many playthroughs of that game I occasionally encountered a bug but none that made me rage quite, at most it made me die and I respawn and it doesn't happen again unless I actively try to trigger it again with mixed results.

I'd say Half-Life and SM64's shortcomings are similar to Adventure's. The entire Xen portion of Half Life sucks, the way the controls are set up is not conducive to platforming yet the game makes you do it often. Meanwhile, courses in Super Mario 64 such as Tick Tock Clock and Rainbow Ride are designed in a way that works against what the game is trying to do. Tick Tock Clock is designed like a linear platforming stage and climbing up it repeatedly for half the stars becomes a chore, and Rainbow Ride contains long sections of doing nothing. Meanwhile, Sonic Adventure contains certain stages that aren't very fast, and Big and Amy's campaigns are poor, which are very small portions of the game still, as well as the shitty camera (which, desu, every platforming game at the time had a shitty camera)

I see what you're saying by that picture however;
>Most of the vital physics and dynamics are gone.
That's because of the engine itself, not a game mechanic.
>Complex features like loops are automated by cutscenes and various gimmicks like boosters and boost rings override Sonic's natural movement.
That's been happening since Chemical Plant Zone.
>It's filled with nonsense like QTEs.
That's just how gaming industry is nowadays.
>Power sneakers increase acceleration and top speed. Boost forcibly sustains max speed. Entirely different.
They do the same function just one is at will.
>Boost in its entirety is antithetical to Sonic's game design.
Wrong. Sonic's game design is based around finishing the level as quick as you can through memorization and quick thinking- He's a high speed platformer. Boost does nothing but Boost, which is helpful when you're trying to complete a level as fast as you can. Again, you're thinking about the level design being linear and boring with zero threats.
ok

>it was honestly what I'd expect for games of that era
Games of that era were buggy, but I rarely see them actively bug out as frequently, or feel as janky as SA1

I really don't know if people are lying to make the game look bad, or if I'm lucky, or maybe subconsciously avoiding them after years of playing the game non-stop, but I honestly have never come across anything game breaking in SA1. Every glitch I've performed I had to go out of my way to trigger. The game never bugs out except for the loop on Emerald Coast sometimes. Hell, this even extends to the DX version, which I grew up with primarily, that people say is so much more buggy than the DC version.

That's literally a Mania mod.animarion you fucking idiot

I'd fucking blast ropes on your face for your ignorance

The only bad thing about Mario 64 is the lack of an analog camera. And even then the game is still enjoyable without that. The fact the people have been enjoying the PC port with minimal to no changes proves that.

You fundamentally do not understand the core element of Sonic's game design. Sonic is a game about PHYSICS.
youtube.com/watch?v=UxILQFLmnmI
It's NEVER been as basic as pressing a button and going a million miles an hour, it was all about using the environment and Sonic's movement mechanics to reach high speeds.

>that people say is so much more buggy than the DC version
It is.

It didn't start out as a mod, faggot, it became one later on.

Now cope.

Attached: 1585105796764.gif (500x375, 2.47M)

>10 paragraph posts
>thinking everyone who enjoyed one game is an autistic retard
>le classic cucks
>dude nostalgia lmao
Just another Sonic thread, so what would you guys want in a new chao garden?

They're "bad" because new gamers come and play them and can't get into older games because newer games have spoiled them. So they stupidly think that means the games are bad.

How do you know it wasn't always a mod that was just posted as a gif first?

Agreed. I love Sonic, but it's plain to see that Mario 64 nailed most of its fundamentals in such a way that the game is broadly still a quality play experience that hasn't been overwhelmingly dated by the games built atop its foundation. Half-Life is similarly well constructed in many of its own terms.

Sonic Adventure is a fun, janky experience that's an exercise in cool ideas that haven't been fully fleshed out or polished individually or in terms of one another. It means that we get to enjoy goofy physics through the spindash that breaks things, an iffy camera, etc.

>That's because of the engine itself, not a game mechanic.
Doesn't matter, it still butchers Sonic's gameplay as a result. It is also that way because the developers could not recreate Sonic's physics. It is objectively inferior.
>That's been happening since Chemical Plant Zone.
Pic related.
>That's just how gaming industry is nowadays.
How is that an excuse for bad game design? Especially when it makes no sense in Sonic?
>They do the same function just one is at will.
No they do not. Sneakers increase acceleration, meaning all the physics are intact, Sonic only speeds up faster with a higher speed cap. Boost sustains max speed, meaning Sonic is always moving at one fixed speed.
>Wrong. Sonic's game design is based around finishing the level as quick as you can through memorization and quick thinking- He's a high speed platformer.
By that logic, a game where you press right and instantly reach the goal would be the perfect Sonic game. You're ignoring the HOW of the game. HOW does the player get from A to B? How does the game work, what tools does it give you? The classics were much more involved with more in depth mechanics which defined what Sonic is. Boost is a much lesser version of that which ruins much of those fundamentals.

Attached: boosters.png (800x700, 44.54K)