Old games that didn't age well.

[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!

 

[Vhite]

Baldur's gate 1+2. Yes, flame me but the gameplay is so clunky.
The graphics still look nice. I'm still going to beat it

I love the second one and I still havent finished it, new game is so tempting...

 

[MrGalactus]

Please don't kill me for this, but


Grand theft auto: Vice City, San Andreas, and 3


Sorry


They were good games, but after 4... Eh, they kind of became unplayable.

I don't hate you, i just disagree with you.
And HATE you!
Nah, I just disagree.

I think GTA4 made San Andreas look better. Vice City is pretty dated, what with the world being tiny by todays standards, and 3 is very dated, what with it controlling funny and actually still being pretty hard at some points, something that todays games have kinda thrown out the window.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Kingdom Hearts is still fun but when you go back and play it, you realize how linear all the levels are, as well as how annoying the camera is. KHII has aged slightly better but the levels are still pretty confining.
Also Banjo Kazooie's controls can be a little clunky at times. and the levels feel extremely small.
and finally, play Bioshock, Fallout 3 or any modern shooter, then go play Goldeneye 64. it feels very awkward

Well, im not sure about KH, but with Goldeneye, one must remember that we were playing that with a single stick on what had to be the worst designed controller in history...

I disagree on the N64 controller being bad, but I appear to be in the minority. As for playing goldeneye with 1 analog stick, why would anyone do that? ;p - I used the dual controller setup, (which, ironically is only possible because of the 'crazy' design of the N64 controller - It's actually viable to hold one in each hand. Granted, this becomes meaningless when later controller designs had 2 analog sticks anyway, but that's a somewhat different issue.)

Dual Controller Setup? You actually played the game holding a controller in each hand... damn...

Yep. The controller has 3 grips, and it's symmetrical. So if you hold it by the central grip, it's perfectly balanced.

If you've got an N64 anywhere, 2 controllers (that still work; I'll admit there's a serious durability issue with the analog sticks), and a copy of Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, go into the game options, and switch the controller setup from 1.1 (the default) to 2.1 (or 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 - These are the dual controller equivalents of 1.2 to 1.4 - 2.1 is called 'Plenty' in Goldeneye. It doesn't have a name in perfect dark.)

For control scheme 2.1, the analog stick on controller 1 is move forward/back and turn left/right. The analog stick on controller 2 is look up/down and strafe left/right.

The Z trigger on controller 1 is Aim, and on controller 2 it's fire.

A on either controller is fire, and B is 'action' (which is the same as 1.1)

Works brilliantly, and probably explains why a similar setup exists on just about every console shooter since. (The dualshock, the first controller with 2 analog sticks was released late 1997 (december)/early 1998, while goldeneye was released August 1997)

Yes, that's right. It's not out of the question to presume the control scheme used by pretty much all modern shooters derives from one of the alternate modes in Goldeneye...

 

[jhlip]

I would have to say Goldeneye for the N64. Unless you played it when you were young and can only replay it for nostalgic reasons, you will never get someone raised on Halo or COD to ever play it.

 

[WanderingFool]

Kingdom Hearts is still fun but when you go back and play it, you realize how linear all the levels are, as well as how annoying the camera is. KHII has aged slightly better but the levels are still pretty confining.
Also Banjo Kazooie's controls can be a little clunky at times. and the levels feel extremely small.
and finally, play Bioshock, Fallout 3 or any modern shooter, then go play Goldeneye 64. it feels very awkward

Well, im not sure about KH, but with Goldeneye, one must remember that we were playing that with a single stick on what had to be the worst designed controller in history...

I disagree on the N64 controller being bad, but I appear to be in the minority. As for playing goldeneye with 1 analog stick, why would anyone do that? ;p - I used the dual controller setup, (which, ironically is only possible because of the 'crazy' design of the N64 controller - It's actually viable to hold one in each hand. Granted, this becomes meaningless when later controller designs had 2 analog sticks anyway, but that's a somewhat different issue.)

Dual Controller Setup? You actually played the game holding a controller in each hand... damn...

Yep. The controller has 3 grips, and it's symmetrical. So if you hold it by the central grip, it's perfectly balanced.

If you've got an N64 anywhere, 2 controllers (that still work; I'll admit there's a serious durability issue with the analog sticks), and a copy of Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, go into the game options, and switch the controller setup from 1.1 (the default) to 2.1 (or 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 - These are the dual controller equivalents of 1.2 to 1.4 - 2.1 is called 'Plenty' in Goldeneye. It doesn't have a name in perfect dark.)

For control scheme 2.1, the analog stick on controller 1 is move forward/back and turn left/right. The analog stick on controller 2 is look up/down and strafe left/right.

The Z trigger on controller 1 is Aim, and on controller 2 it's fire.

A on either controller is fire, and B is 'action' (which is the same as 1.1)

Works brilliantly, and probably explains why a similar setup exists on just about every console shooter since. (The dualshock, the first controller with 2 analog sticks was released late 1997 (december)/early 1998, while goldeneye was released August 1997)

Yes, that's right. It's not out of the question to presume the control scheme used by pretty much all modern shooters derives from one of the alternate modes in Goldeneye...

Thank God for respawn... anyways, damn, I think I do have two 64 controllers still, I have to try that now.

 

[GiantRaven]

For control scheme 2.1, the analog stick on controller 1 is move forward/back and turn left/right. The analog stick on controller 2 is look up/down and strafe left/right.

This is the problem for me. Almost all shooters (in fact I can't think of any examples other than GoldenEye and Perfect Dark that use the control scheme you mention) use the left stick for strafing and the right stick for looking (or keyboard and mouse substituting left and right respectively). It's really hard to break that perception of how to move your character, for me at least.

 

[Scout Tactical]

I would have to say Goldeneye for the N64. Unless you played it when you were young and can only replay it for nostalgic reasons, you will never get someone raised on Halo or COD to ever play it.

This. I replayed it a month ago, and it's awful.

 

[CrystalShadow]

For control scheme 2.1, the analog stick on controller 1 is move forward/back and turn left/right. The analog stick on controller 2 is look up/down and strafe left/right.

This is the problem for me. Almost all shooters (in fact I can't think of any examples other than GoldenEye and Perfect Dark that use the control scheme you mention) use the left stick for strafing and the right stick for looking (or keyboard and mouse substituting left and right respectively). It's really hard to break that perception of how to move your character, for me at least.

Well that's a bit nitpicky when there are 8 control variants in goldeneye, and the dual controller ones aren't the default anyway.

Personally, between Doom, Quake, Goldeneye, Modern PC shooters, modern console shooters, and the Wii, I've had to relearn control schemes so often it means little to me.
(Aside from which, I'm left-handed and remap the controls on PC shooters anyway)


(look here to see the details - http://goldeneye.wikia.com/wiki/Control_style )

Anyway, if you really have that problem, you use control scheme 2.4 instead of 2.1
It's :
look up/down + Turn left/right on the left control stick,
forward/backward + strafe left/right on the right stick.
Fire on the left trigger
aim on the right

Aside from being reversed left to right (which, if you really want to be fussy, since each hand holds a seperate controller, you can swap hands anyway), this is exactly what you're saying you're used to.

So... Yeah. Your supposed problem doesn't really exist.

 

[Buccura]

WarCraft. The very first one, of course. The second one has aged well but the first one, oooo-boy.

 

[KimberlyGoreHound]

Super smash bros.

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

Truth. Clunky controls, limited character selection, unbalanced gameplay. It was fun for the time, but damn its sequels just knock it out of the park.

 

[GiantRaven]

So... Yeah. Your supposed problem doesn't really exist.

I wasn't aware of the other control layouts, so yeah, it definitely doesn't. I might try this out at some point, it sounds like an interesting way to play. I always did like the N64 controller.

 

[ephemeral10]

Shooters

Also, platformers. I'm not sure why, but good platformers just don't seem to age.

I agree with this statement. Just this past week, I picked up Super Mario 64 again. I didn't intend to play it more than an hour or so, just long enough to satisfy the nostalgia pangs.

Two days later, I had collected all 120 stars again. The experience was as addictive to me now as it was when I first played it. I suspect that playing Super Mario 64 will be an enjoyable experience for me until the day I die. Now, after this past week and in reflection of your comment, I find myself being pulled to play all the old platformers I loved so much.