Games that haven't aged well.
- Thread starter VG_Addict
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Deus Ex springs immediately to mind.
From graphics to gameplay, I imagine it would be tough to get into for those who didn't play it a decade or so ago.
From graphics to gameplay, I imagine it would be tough to get into for those who didn't play it a decade or so ago.
I feel like controls are the lynch pin to this question. A game which looks dated can still be lots of fun. The main issues come from forward developments in user input. See such examples as the earliest 3D platformers, shooters before dual stick controls, strategy games that pre-date hotkeys, etc.
Warcraft 1, both faction are almost identical, map variety is very poor and there's little interesting units.
Most old JRPG, the combat is super basic and the story is cliche, although I find that the dungeon are far better designed than most recent version.
Most old JRPG, the combat is super basic and the story is cliche, although I find that the dungeon are far better designed than most recent version.
Have to agree with the early 3d games. A lot of them really haven't aged well at all, especially PS1 games. A few N64 games do still play pretty well (especially through emulation so you don't have to deal with that horrible controller) but that's about it. A real shame for me as that was the first gen that properly made me a gamer (although I did play plenty of SNES, whose library has held up a lot better IMO).
Goldeneye but it was not a good game when it was released.
Half life 1 still play like a game that is recently released.
Half life 1 still play like a game that is recently released.
The first two Parasite Eve games.
Especially the hilariously placed gun safety comments. Oh 90s.
Some of the early JRPG games too since some of the sprites look gross now, like Suikoden I and II. Playing them on my Vita kinda hurts my eyes from the color choices. The controls are fun, but some of the quests are cliche now and obnoxious.
Especially the hilariously placed gun safety comments. Oh 90s.
Some of the early JRPG games too since some of the sprites look gross now, like Suikoden I and II. Playing them on my Vita kinda hurts my eyes from the color choices. The controls are fun, but some of the quests are cliche now and obnoxious.
Anyone saying N64/PS1 games have aged poorly, may I direct you to the old San Francisco Rush and/or Ridge Racer games? Also, Hydro Thunder and Wave Race 64.
...except that even if you believe your personal standards/judgement were simply flawed, the raw capabilities changed with hardware upgrades. In some genres that does translate to a straight improvement in quality of games, and thus 'ages' games that pre-date the tech.Ezekiel said:
It reminds me of what Kojima said when asked if games were art. He responded with something along the lines of they aren't, at least in the traditional sense. They are a product with artistic qualities, but are limited by the technology at the time. By this standard then the same could be said about many movies, but the difference is movies aren't interactive.
This quote perfectly sums up auteur developers, they're the ones never satisfied with technology, because when you develop games you have to makes sacrifices, because their "vision" is something abstract that has to fit inside the disc/cartridge/whatever of the time, which will never happen. This is why Kojima so throughly bows down to the movie industry, because he doesn't think his own creations are art.hanselthecaretaker said:
OT: Add to what I'm saying, some games are timeless, others are not, it quickly springs to mind Resident Evil, or realistic looking games of the time because of how "off" and uncanny they look or control, if you raise suspension of disbelief, they're still playable, but games like Crash, Mario, BK or even Goldeneye are somewhat timeless because the graphics look pleasant to look at, or in Mario and Goldeneye's case, the controls are snappy and fluid helping players to get immersed. ANd in the end immersion is the word.
Lol, okay captain revisionist.Ezekiel said:
I mean you're fundamentally wrong due to how quality and functionality is measured against the possible benchmarks, and in respect to the previous limitations.
But I'm sure small child you totally knew the flaws of the hardware, which at the time were staggering leaps forward in what was possible and seen as the exact opposite of flaws.
I think gaming has its own suspension of disbelief in regards to technological limits. Imagine if Mario 64 ended up getting critically panned just because it didn't have the graphical technology of today. It simply wouldn't happen, because obviously people aren't stupid enough to expect standards which at the time would have been outrageously unattainable.