Unclear Description: Seinfeld Is Unfunny

The concept does sound like complaining, to me. Stating something can no longer be enjoyed just because it's no longer original seems like complaining to me, and doesn't even make sense. How can something no longer be as enjoyable just because it's not new? Also, I keep seeing talk about things "not aging well" because of this, but media doesn't age.

So I do think that there are problems, and that this should be redefined as a trope or concept that was once original is now cliche.

I'll make a sandbox page for the new definition.

I think it's a legit thing, complaining or no. For example, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is considered a massively influential video game and tops many "best games of all time" lists, but people who play it now might find it pretty dated and/or fail to see why it's so great because it was clearly made during the dawn of 3D gaming. (Unless you abuse the glitches, those are fucking fantastic and make the game amazing. But that's besides the point here.)

It's kind of similar to Hype Backlash, but it's definitely distinct from it. The complaining isn't even that bad, honestly.

edited 4th May '16 5:08:34 PM by Karxrida

But that's because of graphics, which shouldn't qualify for this trope. Technical elements (Graphics, special effects) shouldn't qualify, as those are things which improve over time.

The 3DS remake still feels underwhelming despite the graphical overhaul, and I never mentioned graphics. It boils down to the game's design and presentation.

edited 4th May '16 5:32:56 PM by Karxrida

K, could Sonic Adventure also count? I thought that game was awesome when I was 6 years old, but now...it's not so great.

What Art Thee, it seems like this is simply a difference of opinion you have with this trope—and since it's YMMV, that's ok. You don't think older media can become less enjoyable because newer media copies and improves upon it, but this is a very common opinion to have—and that's what's being troped here. People who are used to a refined experience (and yes, better tech) from newer works may very well not enjoy their predecessors. It's the very meaning of the expression "doesn't age well," which is an idiom that doesn't care whether media physically ages or not. It means that that particular work is a product of its time, made for and by people of that time, and not necessarily for those who come after.

x2 I don't believe SA 1 is considered influential outside being the first 3D Sonic game (thus setting the stage for every one to follow), so probably not.

Also, just because you enjoyed it, but now it didn't, doesn't mean the work aged, you did. People's tastes change. You can't expect to like everything you liked at 6 when you are older now. For example, when I was 9, I thought Ke Sha was the greatest music on earth, but I don't think that now. That's a very common mis-use of the phrase.

And about things that didn't age well, that is simply not true. Older works don't become less enjoyable because of newer ones. When I think of "Product of the time, made for people of the time", I'd think of something which heavily relies on events and news that was current at the time, but would be lost on modern viewers, or something which had values which were good for the time, but are now seen as racist, sexist, or otherwise dated.

I agree with Herald, you don't agree with the basis for the trope, and that's OK. It's a YMMV trope, Your mileage may vary, and there's nothing wrong with that or you. Because it's YMMV, it is not making claims about objective truth. Objective truth itself is rare on the wiki as a whole, we are not Wikipedia. Examples are made knowing that someone may disagree.

Moving forward, we should go ahead and close this topic. However, if you believe there are smaller, more specific issues with the trope definition as it's written or used, you could start a more casual conversation over on the trope talk subform.

Maybe not for you. But do you truly believe that applies to everyone? Ocarina of Time was mentioned. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is an incredibly similar game, especially on the GameCube where the controls are the same. Some people dislike Twilight Princess as a ripoff, but others (maybe those who played TP first, then OoT on the 3DS) think it did the Zelda formula better, and that OoT is thereby less enjoyable now. Still others (like me) enjoy them both. Again, your mileage may vary.

Sometimes I can see extremely defined reasons for this being not YMMV, such as maybe Unrefined Gameplay vs modern more refined gameplay usually in Quality Of Life Upgrades via interfaces, tightened controls, better camera, better collision detection etc. Also technical limitations at the time for movies, etc etc. Maybe split those off?

Writing, especially comedy, is always going to be YMMV not matter what.

edited 5th May '16 7:50:41 AM by Memers

Hmm, I don't know. Honestly those almost sound like People Sit On Chairs to me. I see the split, and it would make some sense. But technological progression/increasing quality alone doesn't seem tropable without the "innovative/unique" qualifier this trope generally requires.

edited 5th May '16 8:32:32 AM by pokedude10

I dont know. Watch the original King Kong and the terrible bluescreen work... that was groundbreaking back then. Also its a big effect with today's Gundam fans, many many many current Gundam fans can not get past the 1970s animation and character designs to even sit down and watch it. Then there is the whole say the groundbreaking status of Final Fantasy I and Dragon Quest but they are absolutely primitive compared to RP Gs of today, one has to admit how dated and unrefined they are compared modern stuff.

Its all so dated and usually it is in those originally groundbreaking areas, umm for a name maybe Originally Groundbreaking But Now Dated?

edited 5th May '16 9:20:26 AM by Memers

No, I am agreeing with you. Those things definitely happen, but I don't think those are different enough for a separate trope; especially not a non-ymmv trope. It would be essentialy The Same But More Specific of this trope. Right now this trope is broad enough to cover the examples you just listed.

When we label something YMMV the entire trope gets it and shoved off onto a subpage, in this case that is including the objective parts. Sure Splitting the objective parts would be more specific but that would give that part some actual credence.

Just an idea though.

edited 5th May '16 9:40:15 AM by Memers

Well, like I said, it's not a bad idea. It just might be unnecessary. However, if you want to start a ykttw for it, I'll support it. Over there they might have a completely different perspective.

edited 5th May '16 11:47:15 AM by pokedude10

"Maybe not for you. But do you truly believe that applies to everyone? Ocarina of Time was mentioned. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is an incredibly similar game, especially on the Game Cube where the controls are the same. Some people dislike Twilight Princess as a ripoff, but others (maybe those who played TP first, then Oo T on the 3DS) think it did the Zelda formula better, and that Oo T is thereby less enjoyable now. Still others (like me) enjoy them both. Again, your mileage may vary."

But how does that make it less enjoyable? It's no longer the best, but that doesn't mean it's less enjoyable because it's no longer the best.

And as for the "refined technology" part, I have no idea why special effects/graphics should be the be and end all factor that distinguishes a good work from a bad one.

I definitely think this a real concept; a form of media that was originally groundbreaking and the best of its time but can now seem dated. That doesn't mean the original work isn't well-loved, it just means that it can be hard to get into for newcomers.

On the topic of Zelda, a more dramatic contrast would be playing something like A Link Between Worlds and then going back to the original Zelda I. The original is so vague and open-ended that you'll have no idea where to go or what to do. Back in the 80's that's exactly what made it innovative, but these days a new player would wander aimlessly or have to look up a guide. Even so, there are plenty of fans, young and old, who know the game inside and out and love it to bits.

I think what the trope would need is a rewrite to make it more clear that this isn't a bad thing. A work can be outclassed by its successors, but that doesn't make the original "unfunny" or boring. It just means it can be tougher to get involved in compared to more contemporary and accessible works. Does that make any sense?

edited 28th May '16 5:07:13 PM by NoUsername

Yeah, I think "harder to get into now" is a better way to put it than the implied "has been obsoleted."

On the topic of tech, I'm someone who grew up with the earliest of games, but even I can have a hard time getting into ones I never played back then if their graphics are obtuse and gameplay has a brick wall for a learning curve, even if that wouldn't have given me trouble then.

If two games are nearly identical, with the main difference being that one has a lot better graphics, that one is going to be easier to get into for someone new to both. It doesn't mean the other is bad or necessarily obsolete, just that it takes more work to get into by the current standard.

edited 28th May '16 10:42:55 PM by Jokubas

I believe this trope has merit. I can think of several examples of works that were considered revolutionary for their time which now don't seem that way today since what the work introduced has now become commonplace. In addition, there are many examples where earlier entries in a series feel barebones to later entries in the series because the writing got better, more depth was given to the characters, they added a lot more features to make a game series more interesting, etc. However, this does not necessarily mean that the works cannot be enjoyed today, as there are several works which fall under this trope that still have many fans. As for the second point that doesn't mean the earlier entries in a series cannot be enjoyed as they are still respected for setting the foundation for what the series would eventually become. For example, there are many people who still go back to play retro games despite these games not being seen as groudbreaking today. I believe it needs to be specified that just because a work falls under this trope does not mean it cannot be enjoyed today.

edited 4th Jun '16 2:17:48 AM by ADrago

There's an old joke about someone who goes to see Hamlet for the first time, and comes out complaining that Shakespeare is such a derivative writer! "Most of the dialog was old quotes!"

If there's really a problem here, renaming to Hamlet Is All Quotes might get the idea across better.

That would make it sound too much like a dialogue trope.

Fair enough. It was a fairly tongue-in-cheek proposal anyway.

" I believe it needs to be specified that just because a work falls under this trope does not mean it cannot be enjoyed today."

Exactly. That's the problem with this trope, and what we're trying to fix.

Right now, I'll go through the examples to trim out enjoy-ability from it.

Factual errors:

—A work cannot lose its degree of originalness.
—Innovative refers to the process of creating something original only. All other uses are incorrect.
—Things can become less good because they are no longer unique, in comparison with better yet similar works that followed.
—A thing can age poorly if it dates itself, or shifting social standards make it look bad.
—Media ages like everything else.

Please don't mess up examples just because you don't understand the trope.