Great games that have aged horribly?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

dscross:

It depends how you define improved. For example, you could also make the argument that implementing the quick turn made it easier and therefore makes it less of a survival horror game. I am neither for or against that argument, just to be clear, but it is merely a matter of taste. I never even bothered with the quick turn.

Yes technology does improve, which improves graphics and other design decisions based on changes. But controls and mechanics are built to fit the game of the time and it's really a matter of opinion what works best for that particular game. The fact that there is little consensus on which games have aged accounts for this.

Ask yourself why, in your opinion, some games seem to age and some games don't. And why there's so little agreement on what has aged and what hasn't.

Edit: also I think the point was that games don't 'age horribly' rather than showing no improvements at all.

I think you are only halfway right. To keep with your Resident Evil example: The reason it had fixed camera angles was because the PS didn't have enough memory for a complete 3D world, so RE used 2D backgrounds atop a crude 3D map to give the illusion of more depth and details then there were. It was a neat trick, but it also meant that each camera angle had to be pre-defined or the illusion created by the elaborate 2D background would fall apart. So because of the memory limitation of the PS you got pre-defined camera angles, which in turn meant the controls had to be adjusted for sudden changes in camera angles, to avoid transition looping.

As such it is entirely fair to say that RE has aged horribly, because the limitations that forced camera angles and tank controls aren't there anymore and with those limitations transcended, later games (RE4+) could have better camera and character controls. It is important to realize that old games were all made with very specific limitations in mind and that those limitations might make a game age poorly when held up against more modern games. Just look at how GTA3 doesn't hold a candle to GTA5, despite being the premier open world game of its' day.

With that being said, we should be mindful of the fact that games "aging" generally has more to do with design compromises due to technology (Trespassers AI woes being a stellar example) then it has to do with games aging poorly because of bad mechanics. Games that pushed too hard on the technological limit tends to age worse then those that could realize their vision within the confines of the technology of the time.

dscross:
It depends how you define improved. For example, you could also make the argument that implementing the quick turn made it easier and therefore makes it less of a survival horror game. I am neither for or against that argument, just to be clear, but it is merely a matter of taste.

Oh come on. With that attidue you could waver off any criticism of anything a game does badly. You can also play the games without auto-aim and say it's a matter of taste, that doesn't mean the auto-aim (within that setting) isn't a definite improvement.

Yes technology does improve, which improves graphics and other design decisions based on changes. But controls and mechanics are built to fit the game of the time and it's really a matter of opinion what works best for that particular game. The fact that there is little consensus on which games have aged accounts for this.

Ask yourself why, in your opinion, some games seem to age and some games don't.

Ignoring the technological side, there is simply experience. With time a developer will improve their craft at developing games. God of War 2 has more flexible camera angles compared to 1, introduced climbing with the blades in stead of your hands and swinging with your chains in stead of a rope. These are improvements caused by the developer not realizing at the time what they realize now.

You can claim that if it's bad now it was bad before, and that's probably true. We (the developers as well as the audience) just didn't know any better back then, because it was a new field. That's how advancement occurs; not knowing then what we know now.

No, games individually don't age. As in, Half-life 2 doesn't literally change with time. But on the scale of gaming overall it will lose its edge to other more modern games.

Casual Shinji:
snip

Haha. I love it how we keep debating Resident Evil games. I'm not sure if I want to keep arguing this one tbh, but suffice to say, I think we'll agree to disagree. Read my edit at the end of the last post. :)

American Tanker:
I'm just going to state the obvious here: GoldenEye 007 was a great game, when it came out.

But holy fucking shit, is it a horrible game now.

I don't think Goldeneye was even great at the time. It was barely a shooter considering the entire game aimed for you.

Don't misunderstand, like anyone, Goldeneye has a very special place in my heart for its objective-based missions that intended to emulate what being Bond is like, and it's multiplayer fun, but it was severely limited by the platform it was on. I feel the same about Perfect Dark really.

Even one of my favorite games of all time, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter is guilty of the obscene amounts of auto aim because of the platform. Replaying the PC remaster with auto-aim turned off has made the game feel much more involved than before. Like I'm actually playing something rather than relying on a crutch to get the game playable on a certain console.

Thank god for dual analog sticks later on, or I think console FPS games would have just been held back forever.

Gethsemani:
snip

I don't really want to get into this any further, but I'll just make this quick point.

A) your point about fixed camera angles isn't really relevant to what I said because no modern games would still use them if It was just because of the technology. It worked for the type of game. Until Dawn still uses them, for example. There are lots of proponents of this. Again, its taste, not aging, as I've said.
B) I did qualify my initial post by saying that graphics is an exception but most gamers care more about gameplay than graphics.

dscross:

Gethsemani:
snip

I don't really want to get into this any further, but I'll just make this quick point.

A) your point about fixed camera angles isn't really relevant to what I said because no modern games would still use them if It was just because of the technology. It worked for the type of game. Until Dawn still uses them, for example. There are lots of proponents of this. Again, its taste, not aging, as I've said.
B) I did qualify my initial post by saying that graphics is an exception but most gamers care more about gameplay than graphics.

I'm pretty willing to let it rest, no point in talking to myself. So let me retort and we can part way amicably:
A) How many games today do it? Until Dawn did and David Cage games (Heavy Rain etc.) do, but the former is a homage to the slasher genre and the fixed angles are undoubtedly an homage to Resident Evil. It is important to realize that Resident Evil initially tried to do without them, but eventually stuck to them as it freed up memory for other uses they considered more important. That said, naturally there's a matter of taste involved and to some (who are not me, despite my love for Until Dawn) it is a good way to deal with camera positions.

B) Absolutely, but I think there's a case to be made that gameplay has evolved significantly and that this evolution has left some games "aging" poorly because their gameplay has become archaic. Just recently I tried to replay the first No One Lives Forever only to realize how floaty the movement in that game was. It was absolutely good by the standards of the day, but movement systems are just so much better at providing tactile feedback and feeling grounded today.

Turok 2. I got the remaster of it and while the gameplay still holds up, the level design is so... ugh, not really bad I guess, but just annoying and not fun at all.

So many fallacies, so little time.

Ezekiel:
None of them. If it "aged horribly," it wasn't great to begin with. Games don't "age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Johnny Novgorod:
So many fallacies, so little time.

Ezekiel:
None of them. If it "aged horribly," it wasn't great to begin with. Games don't "age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No. Also...

https://youtu.be/NWXkHp_1bT8?t=2m37s
https://youtu.be/yhUR92071tA?t=2m20s

DefunctTheory:

I was referring more to...

image

That mess.

Yeah, one was worse than two. Also, 2D Fallout's were a bit much (not as bad as this)

To be perfectly frank, a lot of 8 bit games have aged terribly. The Legend of Zelda, Metroid and even Pokemon Red & Blue are just crap these days. Sure the games that came after are fantastic and I played the shit out of Pokemon Blue back in the day. But dear god they are just bad now. There are other games, but these are the 3 series which really mean a lot for me.
Zelda and Metroid both really suffer from the same issues. With out a manual or map they are borderline unplayable. Samey environments (Metroid especially) and secrets which are practically necessary that you have no way of finding unless you use every item on every square in the game. And thanks to 4 directional movement and facing, combat is clunky as hell. See also Castlevania.
Pokemon is a little bit different. Most of the changes that make Gold & Silver great are small. Things like EVs which let your Pokemon get a little stronger and stop every member of each species the same. Small UI changes which means that you don't have to go into your menu constantly to activate an HM. Now if a Pokemon can surf you just need to look at the water and press A. Fixed balancing and glitches. Just a lot of small things but these small things really add up.

But there are other games and one game I am loathe to mention is Planescape Torment. Now I LOVE this game! But lets be honest it's gameplay really hasn't aged well... well to be honest it wasn't the best when it came out. However it's brilliant writing is what makes this game amazing.

Ezekiel:

Johnny Novgorod:
So many fallacies, so little time.

Ezekiel:
None of them. If it "aged horribly," it wasn't great to begin with. Games don't "age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No. Also...

https://youtu.be/NWXkHp_1bT8?t=2m37s
https://youtu.be/yhUR92071tA?t=2m20s

Your staunch determination to not post in a thread which you totally don't want to be a part of is admirable, if outweighed by the fact that you keep posting (something, not that I'm clicking). A wronged woman in a soap doesn't take this long by an open door.
This is how you embed by the way (random example, don't take it personally):

Johnny Novgorod:
This is how you embed by the way (random example, don't take it personally):

I know how to embed here. How do you embed with a specific part ("Start at") of a video? I don't think you can.

Most pre-2000 3D games. They didn't have the technology to make it work yet (the best example of this is the N64 library).
Games that tried to look "realistic" (those early Call of Duty and Battlefield games are really ugly).
Games that were the beginning of a genre that was later greatly improved upon (Wolfenstein's controls are really outdated with no strafing or looking up/down).
FMV games (it's basically cheap movies with bad green screen and mostly bad acting, with some mediocre point & click puzzles thrown in between the clips).

Christ. I feel like I'm back in the bad old days when posters were far too edgy for their own good and putting others down/passive aggressively arguing for no reason. If your only purpose in posting here is not to discuss but to shut down a harmless conversation thread involving people reminiscing then why post at all? It is needless and comes across as a bit petty really.

OT- Pokemon games are a huge one. I cannot go back to gen 3 or earlier now because they still split moves into physical/special dependant on type, not the individual move. Hyper beam? Physical move. Fire punch? Special move and so on. It makes several of my favourite pokemon fairly redundant, and as much as I dislike gen 4 this was the most welcome change made.

Ezekiel:

Johnny Novgorod:
This is how you embed by the way (random example, don't take it personally):

I know how to embed here. How do you embed with a specific part ("Start at") of a video? I don't think you can.

CaitSeith:

Ezekiel:

Johnny Novgorod:
This is how you embed by the way (random example, don't take it personally):

I know how to embed here. How do you embed with a specific part ("Start at") of a video? I don't think you can.

Do I have to specify it in seconds? I tried doing it in minutes with the following:

X:XX
XmXXs
X.XX

Ezekiel:

CaitSeith:

Ezekiel:
I know how to embed here. How do you embed with a specific part ("Start at") of a video? I don't think you can.

Do I have to specify it in seconds? I tried doing it in minutes with the following:

X:XX
XmXXs
X.XX

So far I have managed to do it only in seconds (doing the math on converting the minutes into seconds)

DeliveryGodNoah:

American Tanker:
I'm just going to state the obvious here: GoldenEye 007 was a great game, when it came out.

But holy fucking shit, is it a horrible game now.

I don't think Goldeneye was even great at the time. It was barely a shooter considering the entire game aimed for you.

Don't misunderstand, like anyone, Goldeneye has a very special place in my heart for its objective-based missions that intended to emulate what being Bond is like, and it's multiplayer fun, but it was severely limited by the platform it was on. I feel the same about Perfect Dark really.

Even one of my favorite games of all time, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter is guilty of the obscene amounts of auto aim because of the platform. Replaying the PC remaster with auto-aim turned off has made the game feel much more involved than before. Like I'm actually playing something rather than relying on a crutch to get the game playable on a certain console.

Thank god for dual analog sticks later on, or I think console FPS games would have just been held back forever.

Yeah... no. Auto aim could be turned off at any time, and the hardest difficulty switched it off completely if I remember it right. This made it harder, sure. But the controls themselves were still rock solid.

It even allowed for controller configurations that used two controllers at once, delivering your beloved dual analog stick option before it even officially existed. Nobody opted for it though, because the C buttons -were- the second joystick, and they worked just fine, strafing, leaning and all.

rosac:
Christ. I feel like I'm back in the bad old days when posters were far too edgy for their own good and putting others down/passive aggressively arguing for no reason.

Wait, are you implying there was ever a period of time when this wasn't the case? I must have blinked and missed it :P

Anyway, on topic: I'd really have to say Mass Effect. I probably can't comment too intelligently, as I've never actually played it much. All I know is I really want to play it, but when I load it up it just looks so fantastically ugly and primitive that I know I'm not going to be able to get over it. Yes, I'm sure this will earn me some hate, after all it's the story I want to experience, who cares how it looks?

Well, unfortunately, I do. Part of the appeal in a game like this is immersion in the world, and I just can't get that with how terrible everything looks. It's not that I have a problem with simple graphics, I'll still happily play RPGs from any era, but there's something about Mass Effect that is just off-puttingly ugly. I've honestly wondered if there's some bug or graphical error with the version I'm playing or something, because the textures and models look much worse than other games of the era.

Squilookle:

DeliveryGodNoah:

American Tanker:
I'm just going to state the obvious here: GoldenEye 007 was a great game, when it came out.

But holy fucking shit, is it a horrible game now.

I don't think Goldeneye was even great at the time. It was barely a shooter considering the entire game aimed for you.

Don't misunderstand, like anyone, Goldeneye has a very special place in my heart for its objective-based missions that intended to emulate what being Bond is like, and it's multiplayer fun, but it was severely limited by the platform it was on. I feel the same about Perfect Dark really.

Even one of my favorite games of all time, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter is guilty of the obscene amounts of auto aim because of the platform. Replaying the PC remaster with auto-aim turned off has made the game feel much more involved than before. Like I'm actually playing something rather than relying on a crutch to get the game playable on a certain console.

Thank god for dual analog sticks later on, or I think console FPS games would have just been held back forever.

Yeah... no. Auto aim could be turned off at any time, and the hardest difficulty switched it off completely if I remember it right. This made it harder, sure. But the controls themselves were still rock solid.

It even allowed for controller configurations that used two controllers at once, delivering your beloved dual analog stick option before it even officially existed. Nobody opted for it though, because the C buttons -were- the second joystick, and they worked just fine, strafing, leaning and all.

Yeah...no, I'm not using two controllers by myself for one game. No one used it because it's absurd. And yeah, the C-buttons worked fine enough for movement, ala Turok style, but the N64 controller was not suited to precise aiming. That analog stick is garbage, as much as I love and still play the system. It's the first 3D console I grew up on. Goldeneye was a okay shooter at the time, but I don't think it was a great shooter at the time.

If they age horribly, then they were never great games to begin with. The fans merely become more discerning and realize the truth.

Gonna go with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. I don't know how I was ever able to play shooters with one stick.

There has been so many gameplay and graphical improvements just in the last decade it would be easier to list the games that haven't aged horribly. Great stories are really all there is left for most of the games that have ever existed that hasn't and never will be outdated by now. For a specific example, let's look at Morrowind, constantly hailed as one of if not the best game Bethesda has ever made and one of the best Open World games ever... that has been vastly surpassed in graphics, gameplay, and worldbuilding, and even storytelling by every game in the Elder Scrolls series after it, not that fans of the game will ever admit that of course, the first 2 Fallouts are a similar case. This is why mods like Skyoblivion and Skywind are such a good thing, they take what's unique about Morrowind and bring it forward to the modern age, or at least closer to it.

Ezekiel:
None of them. If it "aged horribly," it wasn't great to begin with. Games don't "age."

I'm probably not even gonna reply to any opponents, because I don't feel like having this argument again. You're wrong.

I concur. PONG RULES!!!

...

Unfortunately Pong is pretty much the only game that will truly ever stand up to the test of time over the years, decades and (hopefully) centuries to come.

It's beauty is its simplicity.

image

DeliveryGodNoah:

Squilookle:

DeliveryGodNoah:

I don't think Goldeneye was even great at the time. It was barely a shooter considering the entire game aimed for you.

Don't misunderstand, like anyone, Goldeneye has a very special place in my heart for its objective-based missions that intended to emulate what being Bond is like, and it's multiplayer fun, but it was severely limited by the platform it was on. I feel the same about Perfect Dark really.

Even one of my favorite games of all time, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter is guilty of the obscene amounts of auto aim because of the platform. Replaying the PC remaster with auto-aim turned off has made the game feel much more involved than before. Like I'm actually playing something rather than relying on a crutch to get the game playable on a certain console.

Thank god for dual analog sticks later on, or I think console FPS games would have just been held back forever.

Yeah... no. Auto aim could be turned off at any time, and the hardest difficulty switched it off completely if I remember it right. This made it harder, sure. But the controls themselves were still rock solid.

It even allowed for controller configurations that used two controllers at once, delivering your beloved dual analog stick option before it even officially existed. Nobody opted for it though, because the C buttons -were- the second joystick, and they worked just fine, strafing, leaning and all.

Yeah...no, I'm not using two controllers by myself for one game. No one used it because it's absurd. And yeah, the C-buttons worked fine enough for movement, ala Turok style, but the N64 controller was not suited to precise aiming. That analog stick is garbage, as much as I love and still play the system. It's the first 3D console I grew up on. Goldeneye was a okay shooter at the time, but I don't think it was a great shooter at the time.

To each their own I guess. For me it's as great now as it was then- not just for pioneering zoomable scopes, location based damage in an FPS and nonlinear open levels (sharing that one with Turok, let's be fair), but also for it's pixel perfect hit detection (which even modern games often bafflingly struggle with), different objectives per difficulty levels (again, games since never learned how much that does for actually bringing players back) and having stealth and objectives in the first place. Even PC shooters hadn't really worked that out yet. This game and Dark Forces dragged FPSes kicking and screaming out of the dark ages of 'kill everyone, find the key' and forced them to *think* their way through.

The stick wasn't nearly as good as the gamecube/ps2 onwards sticks, true, but I've looked after mine and they still handle fine.

Basement Cat:

Ezekiel:
None of them. If it "aged horribly," it wasn't great to begin with. Games don't "age."

I'm probably not even gonna reply to any opponents, because I don't feel like having this argument again. You're wrong.

I concur. PONG RULES!!!

...

Unfortunately Pong is pretty much the only game that will truly ever stand up to the test of time over the years, decades and (hopefully) centuries to come.

It's beauty is its simplicity.

What, no love for Tetris? That game doesn't even need to calculate trajectory!

Most 3D games from the 5th generation of consoles.

RE 4 - Yet it stands tall against most of the COD 4 wannabes and it' sequels. HVGN said it best: the game is a certified classic, but it should not be.

DMC1 - The game is still fun, but a bit limited in what you can do. Also, it is the best Devil May Cry game with the best atmosphere and enemy design. Ohs and Speaking of stylish action games...

Most stylish spectacle fighter action games (predating God of War). A lot of them had so much padding in their respective games. Though God of War clones suffered from the same issues.

Streets of Rage 1 - Yeah, the gameplay is really limited. The best thing going for it is the soundtrack and co-op. For those that don't know, Final Fight 1 on SNES lacked co-op and had a missing level. It's a great thing SOR 2 improved on ecerything and then some; nearly surpassing every 2D beat'em up at the time.

The Bouncer - Okay, not exactly great, but it did get some praise. The wondrous thing about the Bouncer now is the soundtrack and graphics. Everything else is not good at all.

Every PS1 and N64 game that uses polygons. Ill be damned if that becomes a design aesthetic as popular as 8 bit and 16bit

kilenem:
Every PS1 and N64 game that uses polygons. Ill be damned if that becomes a design aesthetic as popular as 8 bit and 16bit

Haha.

People are trying.
I saw one of Nitrorad's videos on Youtube where he was looking at a horror game that was trying to re-create PS1 jank in its graphics.

Whyyyyyy???

Any great game that you actually think that highly of shouldn't age horribly, unless you have some ridiculously high standards, anyway. I'm not against random encounters. I'm for DOMINATING their asses. Look upon my works, ye mighty, in despair, for I can flick you away with nar'ly an effort...until the next section. THEN, the fun begins again...

Really, the games that tend to age the worst are the ones that are the most innovative, whether that's in graphics, UI, mechanics, etc. Games that come after those are the ones that refine those elements, cut out what doesn't work, pull from other games, and polish the rest.

Like, I have to admit that the original X-Com and System Shock games have both aged horribly, but they're also and still are fantastic games that are still fun to play in 2017. XCOM (the new one) in many ways is a huge step down in terms of depth and mechanics from the original, but is vastly more palatable in the modern age due to the improvements made in the UI and presentation. They both have a lot to offer, but much was both gained and lost in the transition from one to the other.

System Shock to Bioshock is also a similar trend.

gsilver:

kilenem:
Every PS1 and N64 game that uses polygons. Ill be damned if that becomes a design aesthetic as popular as 8 bit and 16bit

Haha.

People are trying.
I saw one of Nitrorad's videos on Youtube where he was looking at a horror game that was trying to re-create PS1 jank in its graphics.

Whyyyyyy???

PS1 horror gameplay is good, not visuals. I think people like that miss remember what made PS1 and N64 games great, its the gameplay not visuals.

Pokemon Red and Green. Or their less buggy later versions Pokemon Blue and Yellow are games I still technically like that are good RPGs. Bugs aside they really have aged poorly. Gold and Silver handicapped the series in a way but their age shows a bit but far less than Red and Green.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here