i don't like when people talk about game design as if it's a science that we make incremental progress towards understanding.
this viewpoint seeps into a lot of video game discourse – when people say an older game "aged poorly", call its mechanics "outdated" or "archaic", claim it's "practically unplayable" without modern quality-of-life features, say that designers "know better these days", etc. the common premise here is that old games become obsolete as we invent newer, better ways to design games. there might be some truth to this if you view games as consumer products whose purpose is to keep players hooked, extract money, etc. but it's a sad way of viewing art.
game design is always expanding infinitely outwards, rather than being refined towards a point, and obsolescence is a matter of taste. i've always found it fruitful for inspiration to treat old games and their ideas with respect, even when i can't deal with their friction.
anyways, that's why i think all three sentences in this popular tweet i made are false:
this tweet resonated with a lot of people who took it at face value, though. looking at it from that angle, i can see how the false sentences have a point. someone who holds the position that designers nowadays are smarter and better at design might overlook a lot of the fun and interesting things that older games did!
i don't actually think modern games are "worse" than old games, but i sometimes joke about it when i play an old game that feels weird, fresh, and delightful. modern games can't truly be worse when those old ideas are still out there, waiting to be explored.
