next »

[antoniodamala]

I'm always playing old games on dosbox or emulators, and sometimes i play stuff that are barely playable. The two last ones are Crusader: No Regret and Ultima 7. Both of them have such inuintuitive controls that scares me how people call them classics. Also Ultima 7 camera angle is so painfully weird.

[Eigen]

That's the thing with old stuff. You remember them being awesome but when you go back to them they are rarely as you remember. Doom's been the only exception for me so far. That shit is always great! There's a saying that goes something like "never meet your childhood heroes" which is pretty true.

The game market nowadays is very over-saturated which means you have less and less time to spend on each game. That wasn't the case in early/mid 90s so once you got a game you probably stuck with it even if it had terrible controls or whatever because you couldn't just go on the internet and download/torrent something else. I know in America you could also rent console games and if you made a poor choice you were stuck with it for the weekend. All that effort creates a certain bond I think. No pain, no gain.

I recently had a similar experience with a tv-show. As a kid I remember seeing Airwolf. I was what, 7 or 8? That helicopter was the coolest thing ever and it has stuck with me ever since. Also the theme song is easily one of the greates tv tunes ever. A few weeks ago I decided to take another look at the series. While the helicopter and the whole concept are also extremely cool, the episodes themselves are average at best. The stories are just so silly and cheesy. That pretty much ruined the memory of it being awesome for me.

[Sharkoss]

If they're awful they're not classics is the obvious and correct response I guess.

But I'm not going to waste a perfectly good trolling opportunity on that stuff.

My pix:

Space Harrier/Afterburner/etc.
Diablo
King's Quest V

[D-TurboKiller]

That's not surprising, considering I had the same thoughts myself. My experience with the first Police Quest was awful, as I've mentioned before in a previous topic.

I never tried any of the Ultima games, but I did try playing one of the Crusader games, No Remorse I think. It's... really awkward to do just about anything. I thought the mouse would be used to point and shoot but instead it makes you move around in the most awkward way until you decide to unholster the gun. And when you do, you have to move the mouse left or right to POINT at something. I pretty much just went with the arrow keys instead, but the old style of relative movement rather than absolute movement makes me feel really restricted.
This basically means everytime I want to, say, attack, I have to move around until I find a comfortable position, then stop, then turn around, then take the gun out, and finally start shooting. Then holster again and repeat. Ugh, I can't lie about this one, it's really dreadful, and it really makes me not want to play it for more than five minutes.
Also, there's something really weird going on with the collisions. It seems like everytime I walk into a wall, the character snaps back into the last position. It feels like I'm walking around in this weird-ass grid and he wants to snap back everytime I go where I'm not supposed to, yet it's totally okay to start walking into it rather than just, you know, not let me walk into a wall like every game with decent collisions. Oh well.

Oh yeah, and don't forget about some of those games where they expect you to finish the whole thing without saving. Or games where checkpoints are miles away and scarce all-around.

It's pretty sad how many of the classics haven't aged well at all. I'm not worried about the graphical part, but the gameplay side of things. I say a lot of bad things about "modern" gaming, but one thing we definitely learned was that we don't want or need to take forever to do the simplest things just because the controls force you to do so, or the interface makes it all the more awkward to do (if you even HAVE an interface).

To all developers out there planning on doing remakes of these games, rather than just doing an HD implementation of it, don't forget about making the game more intuitive! It's definitely worth it.

That's the thing with old stuff. You remember them being awesome but when you go back to them they are rarely as you remember. Doom's been the only exception for me so far. That shit is always great! There's a saying that goes something like "never meet your childhood heroes" which is pretty true.

Damn right. Doom and Quake are the kind of games I can get into every once in a while. Good old-school gameplay and non-linear levels make for one hell of an experience. That and not having too much unnecessary storyline crap thrown at you every minute of the way, or having to wait for some idiot to open a door for you so you can progress. Goddamn "modern" gamers made the single-player experience of an FPS so bloody linear and dumbed down it's barely even worth playing, much less replaying it.

[s0]

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

pokemon

[antoniodamala]

Yeap, Quake and Doom are still bloody good to play, agree completely.
Oh and what is wrong with Pokemon? I haven't played the new ones yet, but i've played the gbc ones not quite a long ago and felt alright, even though there are some big improvments since the gba series. Also about pokemons, jesus christ that mistery dungeon series are so boring, is shiren the wanderer exactly that way?

Edit: also never got into any 3d Zelda. Or the combat feels too clumsy, or it has pointless and boring tutorials/stories.

[Nillo]

I blame my adoration of the Pokemon series on 1. they're so cute and 2. collecting whatsits is one of the fundamental desires of a human being. Everyone wants to collect something.

But yeah, aside from that the games kinda suck. They need to rework the random encounters (tall grass is way too frustrating) and they need to add in a hardcore difficulty mode that actually challenges people who are more than 10 years old.

[zalzane]

just try to play almost any adventure game

[VDZ]

pokemon

While I agree that Pokemon Blue & Red are painful to play after being used to Gold & Silver, Gold & Silver remain really good after all these years. Later games have added much additional improvements, but the essential ones that fixed Blue/Red's flaws were added in Gold/Silver.

Also about pokemons, jesus christ that mistery dungeon series are so boring, is shiren the wanderer exactly that way?

Yes.

Myself, I've played most classics a significant time after their release, so I was never able to get into classics that didn't stand the test of time (I felt Final Fantasy VII was so terrible I dropped it near the start, for example, while a game like Chrono Trigger remains good start to finish even to this day).



I think the problem with 'bad classics' isn't just a matter of nostalgia, the games having been bad in the first place, or having had to spend a lot of time on older games, but mainly a case of having played games that did the same thing a lot better. The first time something new is introduced, it feels fresh and revolutionary. But after you've played a game that iterated on the same mechanic or idea, if you go back to the original that introduced it, it feels very flawed. Dragon Quest no longer has a revolutionary tactical combat system, it's a grindfest. Kung-Fu no longer allows you to kick tons of enemies' asses with little effort, it's a beat-em-up with terrible controls. They were great for that time, but we've all just got higher standards after playing games that took the mechanic, and improved improved and improved them some more.

[Tuba]

Sonic Adventure

Had never played it so got it on Steam and can't understand why people like it. Controls are weird, story is awful and half the time I have no idea where I have to go, the HUB world is so confuse and unnecessary. Sonic Generations is much better...

[s0]

But yeah, aside from that the games kinda suck. They need to rework the random encounters (tall grass is way too frustrating) and they need to add in a hardcore difficulty mode that actually challenges people who are more than 10 years old.

i was thinking more because all things considered, theyre relatively generic jrpgs. i bought pokemans black when it came out (the last one i played before that was silver) and was bored.

i was totally into the pokemon craze in the mid 90s because everyone was playing it and you could talk about the games and trade pokemans and etc. but the games themselves honestly aren't that good.

I think the problem with 'bad classics' isn't just a matter of nostalgia, the games having been bad in the first place, or having had to spend a lot of time on older games, but mainly a case of having played games that did the same thing a lot better. The first time something new is introduced, it feels fresh and revolutionary. But after you've played a game that iterated on the same mechanic or idea, if you go back to the original that introduced it, it feels very flawed. Dragon Quest no longer has a revolutionary tactical combat system, it's a grindfest. Kung-Fu no longer allows you to kick tons of enemies' asses with little effort, it's a beat-em-up with terrible controls. They were great for that time, but we've all just got higher standards after playing games that took the mechanic, and improved improved and improved them some more

the romans were fucking dumb i mean they didnt even have computers wtf?? "advanced culture" my ass

[VDZ]

I blame my adoration of the Pokemon series on 1. they're so cute and 2. collecting whatsits is one of the fundamental desires of a human being. Everyone wants to collect something.

But yeah, aside from that the games kinda suck. They need to rework the random encounters (tall grass is way too frustrating) and they need to add in a hardcore difficulty mode that actually challenges people who are more than 10 years old.

Every RPG has 'hardcore difficulty modes' built-in in their very mechanics. Just try to finish the game by placing restrictions on yourself, such as
1. Never grind
2. Don't use items
3. Don't reload after losing a battle (take the death penalty)
4. Don't use <any mechanic that provides a significant advantage, HMs/TMs would work in this case>

RPGs are as difficult as you make them for yourself. Myself, I tend to go for the #1 option, though that's more of a case of me disliking grinding. Combining #1 and #2 is not recommended in most RPGs.

[J-Snake]

As example I don't think Tetris is that good. May be it is considered a classic just because it was one of the very early games providing some gameplay despite its simplicity.

[zalzane]

Na, this is how you bring a challenge to pokemon.

What is the Nuzlocke Challenge and what the hell is a ‘nuzlocke?’

If you’ve come to this site and don’t know, chances are you’re asking yourself this question right now.

The good news is that it’s relatively simple—there are only two rules! But before we get into that, let’s get into how it all started.

-snip-

But he had grown tired of his old Pokemon games; they had become repetitive and unchallenging after many play throughs. Deciding to make the experience more interesting, he set two rules for himself:

1. He could only capture the first Pokemon he encountered in each new area.
2. If a Pokemon fainted he would consider it dead and release it.

[Nillo]

Just try to finish the game by placing restrictions on yourself

Of course. You can make any game difficult by placing restrictions on yourself, but it feels cheap unless the game recognizes that you're doing it. I much prefer games where you can select a harder difficulty and then play while the game enforces the rules for you.

[antoniodamala]

Now that you had spoken about those challenges, i remember that i never used any buff or debuff, i had barely used itens or TMs, and never made any pokemon beyond level 60. 

Also if you wanna a hardcore pokemon, you should check Shin Megami Tensei main series, it's far more complex and strategic, and light years harder. I've been hearing people saying it's too grindy, but grinding is more like brute forcing the game, you can almost always wins using plans. But be ware of the classical jrpgs conventions in it.

As example I don't think Tetris is that good. May be it is considered a classic just because it was one of the very early games providing some gameplay despite its simplicity.

There are better Tetris-like out there, but i think the original still works fine. It's like comparing old pac-man with the new deluxe one, the newer one is far better, but that doesn't make the older one crap. In fact, in those cases the original feels more like a tech demo than a game.

[J-Snake]

That is not what I am talking about. The game is not that interesting is what I want to say.

[Netsu]

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).

[s0]

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

[Drevlin]

Another World

Another world is still very fresh in my opinion. The graphics are great and the controls are fine. One of the best videogame experiences I've ever had