Old games that didn't age well.

[Gindil]

"only a white mage in Final Fantasy" I'm not really familiar with the FF series, is this possible? idk could you come up a different analogy?

Oh, it's possible. But the white mages only get healing magic and are really, really, REALLY weak in ATK.

To have them fighting the ultimate final boss with just heals... Yeah...

 

[Nulien]

Everquest 1.

My old account was reactivated for free for a time, several days ago, and since I was bored I went ahead and reinstalled it. Compared to newer MMOs like WoW, or EQ2, it has such a primitive interface and very slow paced gameplay. It also seems to take much longer to load, and runs more badly on my computer now than it did years ago, even though I've made a couple of upgrades since then.

 

[Sixcess]

Half Life 1

Horribly, horribly dated now. Clunky controls, terrible platforming sections, butt ugly and frustrating trial and error gameplay.

And this is from someone who has HL2 as #3 in his all time top 5.

I've been playing Half Life recently, for the first time (so it gets no nostalgia bonus from me), and I have to agree. The story telling technique is still top notch, but the gameplay is rooted in all the worst aspects of 90s FPS design. You die more to the environment than to actual enemy attacks and the damage you do take from attacks is incredibly unpredictable. It actually reminds me of Duke 3D, though Duke had better level design and shooting.

 

[saffista]

I was surprised at how much the game hadn't changed since FO, but I think irritated me most was the grind. Killing rats and scorpions would have been a lot more bearable if the graphics were better and I had something to look at other than red auras in virtual darkness. I'm not saying it wasn't a good game, it just wasn't the game that I remembered (which was the best shooter/rpg ever made). I guess that there's been too many games under the bridge for me since then.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

For me it's pretty much any psx game, but I guess if I had to choose, it's Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and the first Suikoden. Mostly Suikoden because after awhile my eyes hurt when I look at something else, it's too damn colorful, and the random battles just suck. Some of the dialogue is either unintentionally funny, or god awful.

 

[Jack Macaque]

Sonic haha poor bastard

 

[Odbarc]

Well, not all PS1 games are fail. Anything that has had a quality job being made (usually the FUN games).

Oh, I agree completely. There are so many PS1 games that have aged terribly (or were just plain terrible to begin with). Another good one that springs to mind is Demolition Racer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCcc6D4Jt14]. That is an absolute blast to play.

I preferred Demolish Derby (1 only). The Pit was awesome and took a lot of skill and a bit of luck to play. Being the last one left alive? Hard.

 

[GiantRaven]

I preferred Demolish Derby (1 only). The Pit was awesome and took a lot of skill and a bit of luck to play. Being the last one left alive? Hard.

I've never been able to find a copy, sadly (well barring buying off Amazon or other sites, but I haven't been doing that recently). I remember playing demos when I was younger and they were great fun.

 

[Twilight.falls]

The original Super Smash Bros.
I loved it to death when I was younger, Melee was cool, but I preferred the original over it.

Then Brawl came out, and it was better in every single way. The original just does not hold up to Brawl.

 

[Bobbity]

To name two old favourites that I've tried again recently and just couldn't get into, Morrowind and Jade Empire.
After I finished my third run through of ME2, I had a strange compulsion to go back and play KotOR. I played it all the way through, finishing it and loving every second of it. After that, I thought I might go back and try some of my other old games, that were just sitting in a corner gathering dust.
I started with Jade Empire, and I'm ashamed to say that I just couldn't get back into it. When it was new, I absolutely adored that game, and finished it something like seven times, but it was a struggle to get past the first level when I went back. I don't know why I didn't like it. Sure, the graphics were relatively bad, but KotOR was like that as well, and I'd still loved it. To this day, I still haven't figured out why I don't like that game.
Anyways, I picked up Morrowind again a couple of weeks later, and I still enjoyed it, but I couldn't bring myself to get much further than the first few missions. Sure, it was a fantastic world, but the effects of that were damaged by the graphics, and Oblivion made it obsolete in terms of gameplay.
I loved both of those games, but I think it would be a real struggle for me to play either one through to completion any more.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Super smash bros.

It just can't compare to Melee, let alone Brawl.

Totally. Comparing Fox from then and now... Wow, its come a long way.

 

[aenimau5]

Perfect dark, i never played the original but i downloaded the xbla and Christ almighty its terrible.

 

[Woodsey]

You've just destroyed your own argument.

Fallout 3 is an open-world RPG, HL2 is a linear first-person shooter. They're two completely different things! If you don't like HL2, that's because you obviously like a completely different genre.

People can enjoy more than one genre of gaming...

If I compare it to something more similar, like Portal, it doesn't have to resort to repetition and yet is completely linear and manages to have creative diversity. Or maybe you'll argue that it's a puzzle. But then I'll look at the metroid prime series which, although linear and pretty straight forward, but manages to have many different things you must do to complete the series.

I said Fallout 3 because even if you could only play one way, you'd still have the option of playing the game with stealth or big guns or bla bla bla.

P.S. I'm pretty sure I said I liked Half-Life 2.

Yeah, but if HL2 was anything like FO3 then it wouldn't be HL2 now, would it?

It's like me saying the Sands of Time should have been more like the GTA games.

 

[Fanta Grape]

yay! thats what I wanted. Nothing gets to me more than blanket dismissals & judements people make based on what little they remember from playing the game 7 years ago.

a few things though.

"you were never sufficiently awarded." I feel as though getting an achievement for finding the gaunt is like getting a dog biscuit for performing a trick. The experience (the self motivated discovery) for me is it own reward.


"that's only hinted at by the Ravenholm achievement and is about equivocally fun as using only a white mage in Final Fantasy and the likes."

Since I've only ever played HL2 on PC, I'd been playing through the whole game (not just ravenholm)using as few bullets as possible since long before that achievement was introduced. (and since I didn't know anyone who had played it on a console, I only learned of the achievments recently (about 8 months ago?))

I think I'm seeing a trend here. I like having the tools in box, not being forced to use them, and experimenting to see what possible, and thats rewarding in itself. You seem to like being directed to do something specific and then being rewarded for the effort. correct me if I'm wrong.

"only a white mage in Final Fantasy" I'm not really familiar with the FF series, is this possible? idk could you come up a different analogy?

A white mage in final fantasy is the cleric/medic who does the least damage out of the group.

I'm not sure if you've heard of Nuzlocke challenge for pokemon. It's putting restrictions on the game by yourself like only catching the first pokemon of an area, releasing a pokemon if it faints, etc.

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Nuzlocke_Challenge

and yes. I like the game to reward me for playing the game as intended. I've never particularly enjoyed putting on my own restrictions of the game. If you have the firepower, use it. If the game is only played by running forward and not looking around, it breaks the immersion for me if I do.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Shooters

Almost any shooter, really.
This is because 99% of all shooter games have too much in common regarding gameplay mechanisms and don't really explore the options of narrative. It's not a bad thing, the genre is just not made for 'revolutionizing' those elements. I mean, why play Call of Duty if you got Call of Duty: Black Ops, why play Halo if you got Halo 3 (or Reach, or whatever) - apart from nostalgic values, there isn't a lot of incentive.

Also, all simulator games, simply because - most of the time - it's about simulating something from real life, which of course gets better as our capabilities to simulate in a virtual environment evolve.

In contrast, RPG's seem to age very well. This is because they can have an enormous variety in gameplay (the FF-series alone seems to have reinvented the RPG-genre like ten times by now). Sometimes a certain RPG-element is introduced in only one game, ever - then where will you turn if you want that experience again? Well, simple, play the old classic game, where else would I find a battle-mechanism like Legend of Legaia had... Furthermore, it is common knowledge that if an RPG hasn't got a good story, it fails, big time.

This is probably why RPG's get remakes/re-releases more often: Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy (although, seriously, they've been whoring this one out MAJORLY), Baroque, Persona, ...

For example, I've seen FF VII mentionned here a couple of times, not exactly my favorite game, but it'll do. Even it is graphically a pixelated nightmare, it still has it's unique and praised materia-system. It's a crafty piece of gameplay that gives you freedoms and limits found nowhere but in this game - therefor, you still have a reason to go back to it. And let's not forget the story, like it or dislike it, you can't deny its legendary status. In a good RPG, the story is everything - if it's really good, it an also drag you through those nasty, obligatory grinding passages.

Also, platformers. I'm not sure why, but good platformers just don't seem to age. I can play any Crash Bandicoot or Spyro the Dragon from the PSX-era - or Jak & Daxter or Ratchet & Clank of the PS2-era - and I still feel the magic. And that goes for Rayman, Maximo and Super Mario Bros. 3 as well.

Those who would know like to flame me for this comment: please, proceed.

 

[Jennacide]

Earthbound. Dare anyone to say that it was good enough to force Nintendo to bring the sequels and original here in the US...

Wow, is this just a sad attempt at being a troll? Earthbound ages just as well as any SNES RPG, and in most facets, it ages even better because it created systems that sucked a lot of the once acceptable grind out of RPGs. (Like the instant death for weaker/surprised mobs)

???

No. You read the history of Mother 1 and Mother 3, and Nintendo didn't bring those over. It had the scratch and sniff campaign for Mother 2(Earthbound) and I'm still bitter that I can't legally own a copy of Mother 3.

I know the history of the games, I've played all three as well. What I don't get is how they didn't age well, because financially Earthbound didn't do as well as hoped? That is the sole reason Mother 3 never came over here, as well as Mother Zero(the 1+2 combo game on GBA). It had everything to do with money, and nothing to do with being bad games.

 

[WorldCritic]

Pretty much any PS1, Saturn, or N64 game. Doesn't stop me from loving certain ones though.

 

[Dendio]

hmm well lets see.... How about tekken 2. I had that for the PS1...it was very pixalated and the fighters seemed to hang in the air. The response time was fairly slow as well. Compare tekken 2 to something like street fighter 4 today and its unplayable.

On the Flip side a game thats aged incredibly well is Gran taurismo 2

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Very well then.

Half-life 2's use of puzzles are rather pointless. Such as the time you must get to the higher ground by using a teeter-totter with a box.

The guns are fairly basic, as the crowbar, pistol, assault rifle, shotgun, laser assault rifle, rocket launcher, etc. Only unique weapons are the Gravity Gun and the Antilion bait, yet their rather basic and un-interesting as weapon choices, even at its time.

The graphics for the facial animations are indeed well, but for the body graphics and especially the layout of the surrounding areas are fairly poor. The lighting as well is fairly weak, especially during the underground levels.

Lastly, while the game had an amazing storyline that still stands up well and the ending is memorable, the final "battle" as you may call it is rather uneventful, boring, and bleak. You simply grab electric balls and fire them into a larger electric ball to create an explosion that would otherwise kill you.

But I can tell arguing against a rather eccentric fan is as pointless as trying to stop a train by jumping in-front of it. I'm done with this thread, and my points are made. Regardless whatever someone replies, they are valid to me and I will still consider Half-Life 2 fairly dated by todays standards and view it with only memories. Apologies bud, hope you still enjoy it for a long time.

The thing with Half-Life 2 - especially considering Valve's newly adopted stance as "entertainment as a service, not a product" - is that by tomorrow it could be using the CryEngine 3 and have 50 new guns. As it was released, Half-Life 2 has aged poorly. But seeing as only a few months ago it was upgraded to use the 2010 revision of the Source engine, bringing with it the myriad of physics, animation and graphics improvements, it's hard to clearly say what you'd play today is from 2004 or not.

Hell, they even patched out major plot points - at one point you could save a citizen as he was being pulled down by an Antlion. They made it so he dies. Small, yes, but it means a lot of elements of Half-Life 2 from 2004 has long been patched out if existence.

...worth pointing out, I thought.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I played one of the first Tomb Raiders the other day, god damn she handles like an oil tanker!