What factors determine how a game ages?

I mean what factors determine whether game ages well or poorly? I'm not just talking about graphically. I'm also talking about game mechanics. And to be fair, I don't wish to compare today's technical standards to the standards of previous generations. Why do certain games age better than other games from the same generation, or why certain older games age better than certain games that came out in succeeding generations?

It depends on the person playing, but I hold by this theory: if a game still feels fresh and engaging well after its release, it has aged well. If any aspect of it feels dated or awkward, then it hasn't aged well.

I would argue that the following camps are likely the suspects of replayability: Gameplay, depth, and Control.

Gameplay: Any game lives and dies by its gameplay, what is important in a timeless game, is not that it is executed flawlessly, but flawlessly in its own context, meaning that if a game has some gameplay issues, the game IS well aware, and gives explanation for it. You could argue that the Original Deus Ex did not have the best of gameplay, but within its own World, it made sense, and Thus the gameplay was quite alright. Something you could pass over because it simply fit. Old FF games, Mario games, the old Xcom games, system shock 2 and such illustrates fairly well. So gameplay that is good, but Works in context of own internal logic, Ironically the gameplay in those titles, have had better versions over the years, that either lacked the gameplay, but did not fit with those games own internal logic.

Add to that that most of those games were "firsts" of thier kind. Or of the first wave.

Depth: A shallow game is often easy to grasp and master, but in turn makes it pointless to play more then once, Depth is alot of Things, but usually it is the underlying systems under the Hood, Street Fighter 2 is still a blast to play, despite its gameplay being rather simplistic, but the depth of the systems, and precicion needed is what makes it. Again the Old X-com games are good examples, of depth, you had alot of Things to ballance at once, alot of systems you could perform well or bad at, any one you failed would not really hurt you, but failing a handful would. Games with depth does not automatically mean hundreds of sub menues or buttons used, but how well the mechanics are thought out, and the contexts of them. Games with Depth I would likely list as: Super Mario Bros., Mega Man, X-com, Baldues Gate, Some FF games, Counter Strike, Starcraft, UT, Fallout. Alot of Sim Building games (simcity, Theme Park, and such) show alot of depth and tend to get revisited by many I know.

It is easier to hav a kind of depth in MP games then in SP, but SP games do have the advantage of being timeless, where as MP games always depend on other players.

Control: Input control to be precise, how the game performs in accordence to your input, this might seem like an odd one, but really important. The old Mario Bros. games are games I consider to be near flawless in control input (well 1 and 3 by obvious reasons). I still enjoy playing them, same with Mega man, Fallout, Baldurs gate amongst others. How often do you go back to an old game, and find that they are unreasonably bad to play, with horrid responce, and janky controls? We rarely think about it when the game is new, we might consider it "part of the game" But as time goes on and the game is no longer new, we do observe more poros and cons to a game, and how it Controls is one of those very important Things. A game which has some bad control input, is almost unbearable. But I can still play Pac Man no problem (cabinet Pac Man in this case). This also Works for Pinball machines btw.

Added Bonus; Sound: Ok a 4th category I would like to bring up, Sound does not mean that the sound of the system have to be of high quality, but the sound that could be made often benefits greatly from being "great" within its own constraints (at the time) I will never speak an ill Word of most chiptune music and sounds of the NES. Alot of really Iconic music pieces and sound effects ar edeceptively simple, but they are all clean. Be is Half Life, System Shock 2, LoZ, Mario, Megaman, Street Fighter 2, Guardian Legend, Space Crusade (go to examples) All have sound that despite its age still sound great. I can argue though that there wer ea ton of games that had muddly jumbled music and sounds which back then, I did not think about, but now? I turn off the game within a few minutes ,because it grinds me.

Lastly something not specifically gamewise but: don't place a game to reflect the culture of the real World. Games that makes up thier own cultures, and not borrow heavily from pop culture, tends to age better, they are timeless in a sense, as they are not bound by the cultural real World settings at the time of make.

Ofcourse this is only my ideas, nothing of it might be true at all ;)

You have to consider everything: the gameplay philosophy, level design, control system, the artstyle, pacing and replay value.

Games that have any of the now outdated elements like maze-like, confusing level design, comparatively wooden or counter-intuitive controls, archaic imprecise combat, arduous plot and gameplay pacing, overabundance of story and exposition, jumbled user interface, bad camera or repellent visual design are all pretty hard to revisit now, but in their time their design would have been considered conventional and even fresh. That's how I'd define a game which has aged badly.

To elaborate further, some of these games had the advantage of superior technology and the difference in graphics could be jarring; that is why some games could be carried by for the time technically incredible graphics (but not artstyle, mind you) in spite of lackluster design and gameplay elements, and the cost of pinning their hopes on graphics results in a horribly aged game. In comparison, games which didn't have such technology and which focused on a clearly defined artstyle now have timeless visual appeal and a much higher chance for relevance today.

But while having good art direction can be important here, the graphics are still the least important factor; this is where the gameplay design comes into question. I wont be going in-depth about the aforementioned gameplay aspects, as those are very genre specific and it would make this post go on forever. Instead, I would like to make a unified point by using the example of Super Mario 64, a game which experimented and broke new ground on many levels, yet still was expertly designed.

This is the game which set the model the vast majority of contemporary platformers copied, the key being how many of those copycats aged horribly in comparison. It was the studios first major foray into 3D and it shows, even though it set the standard for the time: the camera is difficult to manage, the swimming sections are very sluggish, the level design is uneven and experimental at times, among other complaints. Yet, the gameplay completely holds up even today due to fantastically realized movement mechanics, many of which are re-used for newer iterations in the series. Combine that with constant uninterrupted gameplay flow, deep and precise platforming, simple yet intricate level design and a pleasant visual aesthetic and you have a masterful game with just the right amount of everything that firmly stands the test of time.

So yeah, you could say that excellence in design is what truly is timeless. But then again, you have games which didn't quite reach that level but were still very ambitious, and their sheer audacity can defy age.

Controls, gameplay and art style.

Games age well when their controls don't feel broken, when the gameplay is still entertaining and when, despite looking dated AF, it still looks decent.

Game play and Art Style...

If you try to go for realism then your gane won't age well... so pick a more timeless art style like Cell Shading or 2D hand drawn art.....

Level design.

That's all that matters. At least to me.

The most obvious is art style. Other aspects can chance little as a game ages.

For me it all comes down to graphics and mechanics.

Why is it that most PS1 games have aged like crap. The only well known PS1 game I can think of that hasn't aged at all is Symphony of the Night. The 3-D PS1 games really haven't aged well. Why is it that SNES games age better than PS1 games when the PS1 was the technically superior console? I can rarely think of any popular PS1 games that are timeless, but I can think of plenty of SNES games that are. I just can't put my finger on why this is.

I agree about art style and 3D. Early 3D ages as badly as early CGI in movies. It looked -great- at the time, but now that we know what good 3D can look like the old stuff looks horrible by comparison. Artistic merit also trumps technical capability, and many games have shown this off. Look at how good a simple PS2 game like Okami looks even today.

-Byshop

Whether I can pick up and play it without too many adjustments; meaning that the gameplay still handles smoothly. Art style and graphics are no big deal, because I get used to them.

If the user interface doesn't get in the way of the player accomplishing the goals of the game, it will age well. Let's take Tetris. When you move blocks left or right, the go that direction one block length. When you push the button, the block turn 90 degrees. It's a simple formula that has remained fun for decades. Now imagine if the designer back in the day had decided to try to show off his programing prowess by implementing a realistic physics engine. Now when you push left, the shape smoothy flows that direction instead of staccato one-block intervals. When you push the button, the shape rotates in a fluid 360 degree motion. This all would have been really impressive to see back then and would probably have gotten a lot of attention. But then when people were actually trying to play it, they would have a lot of trouble lining the blocks up correctly. The wonderment of realistic physics engine would soon give way to frustration at having to precisely line up all these stupid blocks. It would have been a revolution in game design, but no one would still be playing it 40 years later.