next »

[Netsu]

p.s. that games "haven't aged well" doesn't mean they're not classics.

It does however make them awful.

[s0]

no it doesn't lol

[Lauchsuppe]

I recently played some pokemon blue and I enjoyed it. The interface is horrible and it clearly is aimed towards kids (I don't know about the titles newer than crystal) but it's good at what it is supposed to be.
The Shin Megami Tensei series is indeed great at feels similar to pokemon in key aspects. However, I would say that grinding is somewhat essential.

I can't really think of awful classics, honestly. I grew up playing SNES and I still enjoy the games I used to play when I was little.
 

[D-TurboKiller]

i was going to point out that holding games from the 90s up to 2012 standards of interface design is dum but why bother

p.s. that games "haven't aged well" doesn't mean they're not classics.

That's... not really what we're doing here. What you're saying is naive, to say the least. But well, I'll give you a few examples.


In my case, the classic Tomb Raider games (1-5) are still awesome to play around with. Heck, I still think the the 1st game in its original state was a lot better in places than the remake was. Both Oddworld: Abe games still kick ass. Same thing with both the Jazz Jackrabbit games. Tyrian 2000 and Outcast? MDK 1 & 2? Damned awesome.

Oh, and remember Re-Volt? STILL the best RC game to this date. Now THAT's a classic.

Sonic Adventure

I'm gonna go with a good example here, specifically the DX version. This game is still a classic to me. I really like this game, and once in a while I end up going back to it again. Sure, there are many, many flaws with the game (and its sequel shares most of the problems, now that the PC version is out and I got to try it). The story is forgettable, the physics are half-broken and you're lucky if it works in your favor, and the camera is awful.
But was the game any fun? YES! I know a lot of people thought the hub was useless. It's mostly there to add continuity to the missions and to chill out to the awesome music every once in a while (dat Station Square music), and in DX it actually gave you a couple of things to do. I never cared all that much about Chao Garden because I'm too impatient and these things take forever for me, but that's okay.
The main portion of the game was an absolute blast to play, and the music was overall great (better than SA2's, imo). One minute you're speeding along going fast, the next you're in a Casino, or you're shooting things, digging around for emerald pieces, and maybe you even get to race around for a bit. It definitely has its cool moments.


Now, I'd like to point out a game that almost everyone and their mother call it a classic. TES 3: Morrowind. I really tried to like this game. The atmosphere was brilliant, the writing was awesome, it had so much to explore. But my god, the combat was awful. I'm not much into magic, so I never really used it, but something as simple as a sword takes FOREVER to hit someone, even with a bow if it's right on target! I mean, what the hell, are you telling me something as simple as hitting someone is based on pure luck instead of actual skill (or leveling some silly stat)? Why is chance involved in this? I'm clearly hitting it, aren't I? But no, the bloody game decides on itself. Yes, I never really got into it just because of the combat, but I guess someone eventually modded that. Ah well, I judge the game on its release, not on someone else fixing their problems.


In the meantime, go sit in the corner over there and ask yourself, if you played certain classic games now, would you genuinely have fun? You might not be so lucky. So yeah, think about it, Sinclair.

[s0]

In the meantime, go sit in the corner over there and ask yourself, if you played certain classic games now, would you genuinely have fun?

why is that important? i almost never play old games.

listen, what im trying to say is if you judge old games by current standards you're judging them in the wrong context. of course our understanding of interface design and probably game design as a whole has improved, thats almost inevitable. what's dumb is denigrating the efforts of developers of older games who didn't have the same amount of accumulated design knowledge to look back on.

I'm gonna go with a good example here, specifically the DX version. This game is still a classic to me. I really like this game, and once in a while I end up going back to it again. Sure, there are many, many flaws with the game (and its sequel shares most of the problems, now that the PC version is out and I got to try it).

i dont like any sonic game. they dont deserve to be classics.


theres actually another facet to the interface thing but i dont like posting walls of text so

[Blademasterbobo]

this thread is gonna become a shitstorm very quickly

[TeeGee]

In the meantime, go sit in the corner over there and ask yourself, if you played certain classic games now, would you genuinely have fun?

why is that important? i almost never play old games.

listen, what im trying to say is if you judge old games by current standards you're judging them in the wrong context. of course our understanding of interface design and probably game design as a whole has improved, thats almost inevitable. what's dumb is denigrating the efforts of developers of older games who didn't have the same amount of accumulated design knowledge to look back on.

I'm not sure if I agree here. In some cases -- sure -- there are many groundbreaking games (especially complex ones) which problems can be attributed to growing pains of the genre and game design as a whole. But what about all those classics that are still completely playable, even by today's standards? Stuff like Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy or Street Fighter 2? These were also groundbreaking games in their times, introducing new elements so skillfully that they work well even today.

Recognizing why they haven't become awful with age can be very useful for better understanding of game design.

[D-TurboKiller]

In the meantime, go sit in the corner over there and ask yourself, if you played certain classic games now, would you genuinely have fun?

why is that important? i almost never play old games.

listen, what im trying to say is if you judge old games by current standards you're judging them in the wrong context. of course our understanding of interface design and probably game design as a whole has improved, thats almost inevitable. what's dumb is denigrating the efforts of developers of older games who didn't have the same amount of accumulated design knowledge to look back on.

No, seriously. You still don't get it. This is about awful classics. True classic games stand the test of time. It doesn't have to be pretty pixels, or awesomesauce music, or the best gameplay ever. Yes, developers didn't have much of a clue back then, and yes, they probably spent a LOT of effort with many of these games, but in the end, all that matters is one thing... It just has to be fun.
Whether it's 2012 or 50 years from now, you'll grab it, you'll play it, and you'll say, "man, I had a jolly good time with this game, and it wasn't because of the nostalgia". If it ain't fun, the most you'll be able to say is "this game was revolutionary for its time due to xyz factors", or "well at least I liked the story/music/whatever, too bad the game sucks otherwise".

Recognizing why they haven't become awful with age can be very useful for better understanding of game design.

See? This gentleman gets it. Hats off to you, lad

i dont like any sonic game. they dont deserve to be classics.

That's called an opinion. I thought the Genesis/Mega Drive games, Adventure and Generations were awesome. But hey, opinions are overrated anyway.
Also, I generally don't like pokemon, so there's that.

this thread is gonna become a shitstorm very quickly

Man, I hope not. I'm just trying to make a point here, not become the Wizard of Thunderous Manure.

[s0]

That's called an opinion.

and your post on morrowind isn't?

the sonic thing was sarcasm. my point was that the games ARE classics even if i don't enjoy them. i don't like playing the vast majority of popular old games and anything prior to the 90s is p much torture for me, so from my perspective next to no games have stood the "test of time."

[D-TurboKiller]

That's called an opinion.

and your post on morrowind isn't?

Yeah, that probably wasn't the best example. Some people enjoy the luck-based kind of gameplay. I generally think that's just annoying and lazy as hell so they don't add proper combat.

So hey, here's a proper example of an awful classic. The Gothic series of games, at least the first two I got to play. They give you a potentially awesome game, but then ruin it with one of the most unintuitive controls I've ever had the horror to use. Ouch.

[gimymblert]

It would better be sarcasm mr Sinclair 

[gimymblert]

So hey, here's a proper example of an awful classic. The Gothic series of games, at least the first two I got to play. They give you a potentially awesome game, but then ruin it with one of the most unintuitive controls I've ever had the horror to use. Ouch.

I never get why people say that, I was a virgin to these games and I pick up the game so fast and the control felt more than correct. It's not like there is any nostalgia, maybe it's my console background that helps. I never had problems with gothics aside from shoddy and slow programming lags (loading hell).

[J-Snake]

So hey, here's a proper example of an awful classic. The Gothic series of games, at least the first two I got to play. They give you a potentially awesome game, but then ruin it with one of the most unintuitive controls I've ever had the horror to use. Ouch.

Hehe, the awful controls have become a part of its charm for me. I guess it is the only way to cope with it.

[antoniodamala]

I think we're getting too much into the dark side of subjective matters. Half of the whole concept of fun is subjective, so it's better to stay off of it. Let's stay more technical please, sirs.  

Also nobody here is purely analysing games by actual standards, most of us have played games for too long to only consider contemporary points of views.  


 

[gimymblert]

It's also education, When you know what to expect you are less likely to be let down. A lot of classic are either because they were a step in increasing standard you may hold them to now OR because they have genuine quality that weren't match at their times or even now. Ultima 7 is still heavy in many simple interaction that made the world lively that even modern 3D game feel like pong near them.

[s0]

So hey, here's a proper example of an awful classic. The Gothic series of games, at least the first two I got to play. They give you a potentially awesome game, but then ruin it with one of the most unintuitive controls I've ever had the horror to use. Ouch.

I never get why people say that, I was a virgin to these games and I pick up the game so fast and the control felt more than correct. It's not like there is any nostalgia, maybe it's my console background that helps. I never had problems with gothics aside from shoddy and slow programming lags (loading hell).

yup, that's actually the point about interface design i wanted to make earlier but forgot. i think a lot of the supposed "intuitiveness" of modern game interfaces is actually rooted in familiarity more than anything.

also designing an interface for a "complex" game (i.e. game with a large ruleset) like a crpg or a grand strategy game, is hard. even modern games in these genres don't have good interfaces for the most part. older platformers and etc. are more "playable" because a 2 button + d-pad control scheme that doesn't heavily rely on menus or combinations is ALWAYS going to be easy to figure out sans instructions.

[mewn]

Speaking about old classic, I tried to play lately a game that I loved when it was out in the 90's and it didn't age that much. If you are into horror/survivor RPG :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legacy:_Realm_of_Terror

[AshfordPride]

Durr hurr, I bought an isometric RPG that's older than I am on Steam and it doesn't even have any tooltips during the loading screen to tell me how to do things.  Worst yet is that the game developers didn't even make a alternative for me the person playing the game over a decade later without the manual I was intended to be referencing during play.  Did they even test this game before they released it?

[Sharkoss]

Another World
I really wanted to get into it several times but never made it beyond the first few screens.

Diablo

Really? Why? I consider it to be one of the best aged games (together with Quake 2).

I mostly think it's dull, but it also had some moments that are just horrible.  The Butcher is considered one of the more memorable parts of the game by fans but that is an agonisingly bad encounter from a gameplay perspective - horribly class-balanced, basically leads you into discovering (truly stupid) AI exploits, and braindead no matter how you play it.  I wasn't enjoying the game at all up to that point (and I was playing co-op) but it really soured me on the whole thing.
This is a normal encounter with The Butcher.  The player isn't deliberately trying to make the game look stupid:




I also think playing Quake 2 was a waste of my time and I regret every second I spent with it, so I don't think we can ever see eye to eye, haha.

[D-TurboKiller]

Thankfully, there aren't a lot of awful classics that I can think of, at least not on PC anyway. I think it mostly comes down to some of them just being a pain to play for several reasons. Even then, for the most part they should be enjoyable to some extent, and sometimes there are ways to avoid those problems entirely. Finally, in the end it still comes down to personal opinion whether you enjoy it or not.
For Police Quest I VGA, I paid more attention to the story and tried to occupy myself with other things during the lame driving sections. For Morrowind, I just kept exploring and avoiding combat as much as I could. For Gothic... I had to bear with it.

Oh yeah, lets not forget how awkward it was to play online back then. I wonder if they ever got a game like Claw to have a server populated with the supposedly maximum of 50 people.

Most of them aren't nearly as terrible as they sound, but there are things we should point out as unintuitive, broken or just plain stupid. Don't you think it's great to discover how we learned from past mistakes, or how we keep doing the same mistakes in modern gaming, as well as ways to fix it? I sure do, folks.

Also, what about console classics? Surely there are games out there that just don't work all that well, and sometimes become too grand or fail to make proper controls. Or perhaps it has a whole bunch of annoying aspects, like unavoidable traps or enemies, or broken attacks. I seem to recall a lot of NES games in which most of these happen.