/v/ - Video Games

Vidya Games

[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]
Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 24.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit.


8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to any other "8chan" site, past or present.

Happy Birthday 8chan!

(188.72 KB 273x364 Orcs and Humans.png)
Games that have aged horrendously. Anonymous 10/15/2020 (Thu) 13:56:01 Id:1ef6dd No. 128084
Warcraft 1 is one of the most slow, boring, mind-numbing games I've ever beaten. It takes around 25-30 hours and most of that is waiting around or awkwardly moving your units 4 people at a time. Granted, this is better than the average game at the time which only allowed you to move one unit at a time, but those games have also mostly aged poorly. The AI barely works and when it does, it always finds the slowest possible way to do something. It only sometimes attacks enemies unless you explicitly tell it to. You can't setup macros so you're manually clicking on every unit and making them attack who and what. Matches easily take 90 minutes to beat and the vast majority of that time is just you waiting or setting things up. Every level is more or less the same, though it slowly gives you more stuff to work with. It's very much one of those "podcast games" you zone out to while paying attention to something else. I understand it was an innovation in the RTS genre, but playing it today is a complete chore. Even Blizzard themselves have said the game isn't fun anymore, which is why they're never remastering it.
I can think of several "Multiple award-winning" and "Innovative" games that fit that description, been playing Loria the Warcraft 2+3 inspired RTS, some of the stuff just doesn't jive well. And we've seen how "Quality of Life" improvements can help kill a game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbjZwVdezko[Embed] Like how Diablo 3 is an abortion.
>even the cancerous retards said the game wasn't fun That's not an argument against it at all whatsoever. Blizzard is full of retards and if you think their executives aren't out of touch, you probably own a phone :^) They shat on a lot of their old games. Its been too long since I played WC1 though but I wouldn't be surprised if most of your points at least had merit though. It is a rather old game, but its funny how much better and well-aging Warcraft 2 is compared to it despite being released only shortly after. Plus those 2D hand-drawn graphics are blessed.
Goldeneye Come on, go back and play it with a completely fresh mind. It's not good anymore, not even by console FPS standards. It's weird and clunky, the levels are designed almost nonsensically, if you use a mouse it becomes trivially easy. I never played it growing up because I was a PS1fag, the first time I ever played it was around 2013 and man was it a slog. It does some cool stuff but it is just not fun to play from a modern perspective. I see some people blame that on the N64's autistic controller but even playing it emulated with a gamepad, it felt bad. You look in the vague direction of somebody and your gun awkwardly auto-aims towards them, to me it didn't feel like I was fully in control of what I was doing, the game was doing most of the work. >>128088 WC2 is good, I prefer it to WC3. I think I played WC1 for all of 45 minutes before dropping it due to OP's reasons. One thing he misses is having to build roads construct anything and BOY does that get old FAST. Everything is also really fucking expensive, like a simple arrow upgrade costs 750 and the one after that is 1500 so to get your archers to an even usable state costs you 2250 gold.
There are so many old arcade games that are so horrendously boring to play for more then five minutes. It almost feels like it was part of their design. Like hey aren't you bored yet? Let someone else put money in the machine kid.
>>128088 I haven't beaten Warcraft II but it does suffer from some of the same issues, namely it's still somewhat slow and it still takes an eternity to move your army around. From what I've played it, isn't the complete chore the first game was. >>128089 I think Goldeneye was so beloved because most Nintendo only kids never played a proper FPS prior to it, there was Doom on the SNES but that was only the first few levels and wasn't very good. It was a lot of people's introduction to the genre and rose-tinted glasses come with that. Anybody who says the game's so janky because of the controller obviously hasn't played Doom 64, that game is still good and it's for the same console. > think I played WC1 for all of 45 minutes >Everything is also really fucking expensive There are more issues I didn't mention because they're so numerous, but cost is a big one. You really have to stack a lot of peasants/peons to get enough resource production to have anything going at a "reasonable" pace.
There are games that aged great in my opinion besides several of their elements which have aged terribly. >Morrowind Generally, most of the shit in this game aged amazingly, besides the UI. I'm mostly talking about how annoying alchemy UI is, with having to scroll through all of the icons of ingridients and look for the tooltip of every single one to make a mixture. >Super Mario 64 Aged like fine wine besides the camera which aged like complete milk. It's a bit annoying to play a 3D platformer without a fully analog camera. >DOOM Aged amazingly well besides the level decorations themselves. They look a bit samey due to there not being too many details in contrast to Build Engine games. Most wads fix that problem though.
>>128089 The default controls in Goldeneye is 90 percent of the time peoples whole problem with it. They usually never play long enough to really look into it either. The way to play it even back then was to turn off autoaim, use the C buttons to move forward back and strafe left and right. And use the joystick entirely to move the recital around the screen. You know like modern wasd controls. Thats not to say there aren't other problems with the game. But the game dose play way better if you change the control scheme and spend more then five minutes getting use to it.
>>128092 >Morrowind I'd say other things that aged poorly are the game's art style and combat system. I'm not talking about the early game combat where you're missing everything, the entire system feels unresponsive and floaty if you know what I mean. This was also a problem with other games at the time. Weirdly enough, the first two TES games never had that issue. >DOOM The first game is still great in pretty much every regard, I've beaten it on UV with keyboard look and had no problems. The second game aged way worse with its gimmick levels that play like rancid asshole. Not to mention the Archvile who's only used like 13 times in the entire game. It's like ID made him then had no idea what to do with him.
>>128097 DOOM2 levels in general play like absolute shit. They're really not that fun, they're mostly ugly, nonsensical and kind of annoying. As well as the music just not really being that pleasant in comparison to DOOM 1. DOOM 1 is amazing, but it does suffer a bit from that problem.
>>128097 I can't say that Morrowind's artstyle aged poorly at all, if anything, it is only the model quality that didn't allow to convey the full extent of how that artstyle was supposed to look.
All the legacy of kain games, nowadays only the acting, story and ambiance feel good.
>>128105 Yeah, whenever i feel nostalgic for Legacy of Kain series, i don't play it, just reread the story or watch one of those movies made out of cutscenes.
>>128105 >>128198 I remember really liking Soul Reaver, but I don't think I've played it since 2005.
(27.05 KB 593x388 PAIN (2).jpg)
I played and beat Dragon Quest 1 for the GBC on my n3ds, tried to beat DQ2/DQ3 but my eyes and ears could not handle it anymore, the graphics aged like sewage in the hot sun and it physically began to hurt me as I played it jesus christ how the fuck did people enjoy that shit back in the day? I played FFXI because of the FFXI thread and I thought it would play similar to Kenshi in a way being really slow at first then later becoming dumb fun which you make and expansive in your own way, but no, it was not like that for me at least. Everything was super archaic, monotonous, took an excessive amount of time to do or was obscure, not to mention GRINDY, but in the worst kind of way. The controls and character customization were shit too, quests pretty much require you to use google to complete them and to put it simply, the game was a product of its time (2002). It was just soul crushingly boring for me, like even more draining than working a 9 to 5. I feel a similar kind of way about FFXIV though too, but I just may not like certain kinds of MMO's in general because I did enjoy a few in the past.
>>128223 >that image By janos erase this foul imagery.
>>128092 Doom and Super Mario 64 have aged poorly in my opinion. They were ahead of their time. Just a few years later you were getting getting 3D platformers and FPS games that were basically perfect and have rarely been matched since, but SM64 and Doom were so cutting edge that they feel unpolished playing them today.
All games pre 2018 look like dogshit. Raytracing (tm) will bring in the golden era of good looking games.
>>128092 The controls in SM64 feel a bit floaty for me. Maybe because I'm playing on emulators and not with an actual N64 controller, but it feels like sometimes Mario doesn't properly turn around. Make him go about face, and he'll walk a full circle. But it's not very consistent about when he does that. It's pretty frustrating for parts where you have limited space to walk on. >>128105 The camera controls for Soul Reaver are outdated, but I think the PS2 LoK games have aged alright. Bloom Omen 2 is comfy
>Mother (Famicom) Outside of a unique atmosphere, there's little mechanically that separates it from other NES-era JRPGs. Earthbound/Mother 3 more or less made it obsolete. >Pokemon Trading Card Game (GBC) I replayed this on an emulator a couple years ago, and good GOD was the UI a slog to navigate through. Definitely one of those titles that would have largely benefitted from more modern control schemes.
>>128098 The only good thing about doom II was the super shotgun and new enemies. I did not enjoy the game it felt like a chore and I especially hated those levels in the cities.
>>128269 I feel that 2D will always look good (Dont you go smartass on me and say 2600). early 3d however does look atrocious.
Media doesn't age badly. If it's bad, it's bad. People who say it used to be good were just bandwaggoners with either shit taste or no taste. Or sometimes the game is good and they're only saying it's "aged badly" now because they became bandwaggoners with shit taste or no taste. >>128090 They expected most players to die within that time anyway. It is part of the design. They're fun for short bursts, but that's okay. Smash TV originally didn't have an ending because they never expected someone to get that far anyway. That doesn't mean it isn't still fun for however long it would take a regular person to use up a credit. >>128092 There are other 3D platformers that work fine without an analog camera, but the way Mario 64's camera "ratchets" makes it much worse than something like Spyro, where the camera rotates smoothly when you hold shoulder buttons. It's somehow worse than Ape Escape, where your primary camera control is just tapping a button all the time to keep centering it behind you. And of course there's the Crash Bandicoot option of just designing the levels around fixed cameras anyway. And it's not that Mario 64 aged badly. The camera was always bad. Jumping Flash predated it and did a very different kind of 3D platforming, but it was great. Mario 64 is great in practically every other regard, though, so it's relatively easy to get used to dealing with the camera, and putting up with the times it gets annoying, because the rest of the game is worth it. >>129133 I love the look of early 3D stuff. Not only early games, but early shows, early short films. People say they look like the uncanny valley, but I feel they aren't good enough to even get there, and when done well, the creators knew how to design around their limitations and make stuff that looked good anyway. On Canada's major kids channel, in the mid-'90s they used to show these CGI shorts during commercial breaks, and they're my ultimate nostalgia. I still look forward to the day when games will actually look like those renders that were seen in promotional images, like on covers and posters and stuff. Of course, I don't expect the world, or at least the video game industry, to survive long enough to get there.
>>128092 >he still hasn't memorized the alchemical effects of every ingredient in the entire game, both expansions and also TR haven't played Morrowind enough
>>129166 Go wortcraft some Vampire Dust, skooma-brain
>>129168 Jokes on you fucker, my alchemy skill is so high that I'll actually experience the fortify health effect and be even more densely autistic.
(137.21 KB 284x337 [coughs].png)
>>129151 >Media doesn't age badly I'm sick of hearing people mindlessly repeating this and acting as if they're smart for doing so. Video games aren't like other mediums, they can absolutely be rendered archaic or obsolete by improvements made later in time. Try and play any game on the Odyssey and tell they're anything more than a relic by today's standards. Play a really early CRPGs and see if their ubiquitously cryptic and bullshit design is fun today.
(103.47 KB 800x532 80s pool.jpeg)
All this post tells us is that you are incapable or unwilling to understand something in context. My guess is that you are underage. At the time we all knew these games weren't actually all that fun and had major issues. We saw the potential, and compared to all others in the genre, they were groundbreaking games. We were also out doing things, unlike the following two generations. These games were for GenX, who generally did fun shit outdoors and fucked girls after school. If the game kinda sucked, well, don't finish it and go fishing or go fuck Big-Tit Barbara down the street (her parents are out of town). Remember, few people were fat lard asses like now. Fat people got picked on (as they should). Being fat was somewhat unusual. My point is: yes, these games kind of sucked, we knew it, we took our frustrations out on the local highschool girls who gave birth to you ungrateful fat shits.
>>129256 Fuck off you middle age blowhard
(55.19 KB 640x371 Battlezone.png)
>>129151 >Media doesn't age badly. If it's bad, it's bad. People who say it used to be good were just bandwaggoners with either shit taste or no taste. Or sometimes the game is good and they're only saying it's "aged badly" now because they became bandwaggoners with shit taste or no taste. Did you take this from a video essay? This is such a mindbogglingly stupid statement to make. Look at OP's example of Warcraft 1, the game was revolutionary for the time but Warcraft 2, Age of Empires, et al made it completely irrelevant and trying to play those older RTS games today after all the QoL and gameplay improvements made in the 26~ years since then results in them being comparatively slow and frustrating. Was Warcraft 1 "bad" in '94? No, it was one of the most well balanced and fastest RTS games ever made up until that point. But it''s not fun to anybody who's played an RTS made since then. Your statement asserts quality as a static constant that remains unchanging, but that's not true. Quality is both subjective and relative. Warcraft 1 was fun relative to other contemporary RTSes. Warcraft 1 is not fun relative to later ones. The same goes for other games made early in a genre's history like Battlezone, which lacks any meaningful enemy variety, level design or even basic features you'd expect from an FPS. That's because it was made 40 years ago and compared to games made over a decade later it's incredibly repetitive and boring. Battlezone was incredible at the time as 3D video games were virtually non-existent and so was the entire FPS genre. It was based on and being compared to late 70's arcades games like Lunar Lander and Asteroids, not Blood or Quake. But when compared to a game like Wolfenstein 3D, it pales in comparison. And when you compare Wolfenstein 3D to a game like Blood or Quake, it itself pales in comparison. The same will almost certainly be true of current generation VR games. Half-Life: Alyx and Boneworks have made some older VR games like Job Simulator and Damaged Core appear as relatively sluggish amusement parks rather than actual games, and later, more refined VR games will likely do the same thing to HL:A and BW themselves. Thus is the nature of the ever-shifting personal and cultural criteria of 'quality'.
>>129265 I remember having a poor time with WC2. Specifically it felt like both sides had the same equivalent units, but last time I played it was well over 15 years ago. I can't imagine how WC1 felt in comparison. Meanwhile a game like Red Alert (or even basic C&C) did it not come out around the same time? I always felt they were better designed.
>>129274 No, they came out after both WC1 and 2. Again, WC1 was a big innovation but it's not great today.
>>129276 Seriously? That's a genuine surprise for me. Very cool
Speaking of badly aged RTS games, lets take a look with Dune II (1992) by Westwood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOscXf0Fpmk to it's remake/sequel Dune 2000 (1998) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6WlSjUSWng absolutely large gap
(9.85 MB 426x236 OlderGamesAreBetter.webm)
>>129252 You're a fucking idiot. You're comparing basically the first ever games against later ones but in your mind you're comparing "old" films and books. Video games are fucking 50 years old. The same way people say some old films are better they're talking about films from the 40s onward. They're not talking about 1900 films which I bet you didn't even know existed. By the 40s the industry was so mature it started getting government censorship because the films started being too sexual/drug realted/violent etc. No one here is saying ColecoVision games were the epitome. They are however saying that games now have started deteriorating in design. Games as a medium aren't being pushed but stagnating because of their obsession with graphics and being "cinematic". CINEMATIC?! Fuck me. That's what people want? They want their games to be like films? Why? Do they want their books to be picture books? I mean it would make it better right? You would have all those cool pictures in there. And you don't have to read pictures.
(32.03 KB 500x500 beefy rig.jpeg)
>>129302 Anon are you okay
>>129280 Yeah, prior to the Warcraft games selecting several units at once wasn't really a thing in RTSes. You can tell if a series came out before or after it based on that. >>129286 >>129288 Oh man, Dune was one of those games where you had to move your army unit by unit. Arguably the first RTS. It borders on being unplayable for most people because of its extremely archaic design, though it still has some diehard fans. >>129302 What are you even rambling about? Graphics? The film industry? Please stop going schizo and pay attention to the context of the thread and conversation, whatever point your post is trying to make is incoherent.
>>129274 > Specifically it felt like both sides had the same equivalent units This was probably intentional, to keep them balanced. WC2 gave you one difference: ogres cast Bloodlust and paladins cast Heal. This unbalanced the game and made mobs of ogres the way to win since you could double their attack for the decisive first few seconds of battle. > Meanwhile a game like Red Alert (or even basic C&C) did it not come out around the same time? Looking it up, C&C came out in September 1995 and WC2 in December 1995. This is what I remember: C&C was the hot shit for a couple months until everyone abandoned it for WC2, and a few months later everyone was playing Duke3d. RA was later, WC1 was earlier.
>>128090 All those one-screen arcade games where you have to kill all the enemies. The physics aren't particularly fun, all the levels look the same, all the enemies are just variations of each other. Beat-em-up's in general too. Why play one of those when you can play fighting games instead? There's a few good ones that know how to keep the gameplay varied. But god so many of them just have a single fucking button and a jump. >>129256 >but the context If the context is more interesting than the movie then rather than watch the movie, just read about the history. But this is coming from someone that considers movie-watching a genetic dead-end. >>128089 Never played Goldeneye but doesn't it do difficulty settings extremely well? As for a shootan it was always a sluggish mess. The standards back then weren't particularly lower, it was just kids that didn't have a choice.
(5.80 KB 293x274 1596503594399.jpg)
>>129312 You're a fucking retard if you can't comprehend his points and think he is "going schizo". You fucking faggot.
>>128089 GoldenEye aged poorly, but Perfect Dark is still a good game. Console FPSes should have more games with auto aim like Perfect Dark and Armored Core, honestly. Aiming with a controller is so shit that avoiding the problem entirely is a pretty valid option in my opinion. Funnily enough, the PS2 adaptation of Tribes 2 is fun because they redid the controls completely and made it sort of like Armored Core but without the Cores.
>>128092 >Morrowind >Generally, most of the shit in this game aged amazingly, besides the UI. I'm mostly talking about how annoying alchemy UI is, with having to scroll through all of the icons of ingridients and look for the tooltip of every single one to make a mixture. The UI is the best part of Morrowind easily aside from specific controls, among them the alchemy ingredients like you mentioned. Others include anything that involves numbers like haggling and setting values for spellmaking -- why the fuck are there sliders and not a text field? But it's good mostly because of the responsiveness, simplicity and versatility of it -- it's what you'd expect out of a decent Not-Windows UI framework you'd see in Linux or something. With a potion/scrolls icons mod it becomes even better. Every Elder Scrolls game had worse UI after it, it's the generic "each type of information panel takes up your whole screen" bullshit you see in every other RPG, and menu inventory instead of grid inventory (which has the same problems as scrolling through your fucking alchemy ingredients in Morrowind). Many will disagree about the gameplay of Morrowind but I think anyone who's played a decent RPG before will agree it has good UI, because UI is the weak point of most RPGs.
I tried to play Alone In The Dark, but man is it hard to go back to that after things like RE
(832.21 KB 2048x1365 shitmovie.jpg)
>>129321 Whatever, fag, old stuff always sucks. I mean look at this shit: no plot, no characters, no action scenes, just a fucking train. Old stuff sucks ALWAYS This post is retarded and should not be taken seriously
>>129348 Just play the new nightmare.
>>129259 >buttmad underage who will be forever unsuccessful and unattractive.
>>129252 >>129265 Nobody went back in time and made the games worse. They are objectively the same quality they always were. What's changed is player tastes and expectations. Different games aim for different goals, and a certain time can have more games that aim for a certain goal than another time. Odyssey games typically had different goals than most modern games. They may have been intended to be shorter experiences. Pong and many of its clones are still good, even if it's only made to be fun for short bursts. This also does not mean all Odyssey games are good. Plenty of them aren't. They were always bad, though. So are the other games you were complaining about. Sometimes a game can have good ideas but still be a bad game, and later games can flesh out the ideas and use them more successfully. That seems to be what you're talking about. On the other hand, some old games are good and then later games improved upon their concepts even further. Great. Those new games might be even better. It doesn't make the older ones worse than they were originally. They're still good. >Your statement asserts quality as a static constant that remains unchanging, but that's not true. Quality is both subjective and relative. I agree it's subjective and all up to tastes, and tastes can be quite different both within generations and of course across generations. That's kind of beside the point, though. Your point that it's also relative is more relevant. However, I would say that a better game coming out doesn't make an older one worse, it just means there's an even better one now. The older one, even if not quite as good, is still good and still has value. Now, things are a little bit different in cases like rereleases and remakes and such. In those cases where it really is the same game with minor differences, it's easier to argue something is "obsolete," but I still don't see how that makes the original bad. Throw in the subjectivity you mentioned, and it gets even more fuzzy. In most ways, Pokemon Yellow is a straight improvement of Red and Blue, but I'm sure you'll still find people saying Red and Blue are better, because it's subjective, and they might like some of the subjective aspects were changed. This goes for the later remakes like FireRed and Let's Go. Obviously one of those has more detractors than the other, but there are still people who think elements that they subjectively like over even the good remake leaves the original as being the best. And I chose this example very deliberately, since some people complain all day about glitches and other issues in Gen 1, but guess what? Everyone still liked those games when they were new, and plenty of people still like them now, because how big an effect each individual change in a sequel and remake has is subjective. Some people might not care about the changes, or might see them as negative. And anyone who doesn't know about the changes in the remakes won't care about them, obviously, regardless of what year it is. >Battlezone was incredible at the time as 3D video games were virtually non-existent and so was the entire FPS genre. It was based on and being compared to late 70's arcades games like Lunar Lander and Asteroids, not Blood or Quake. But when compared to a game like Wolfenstein 3D, it pales in comparison. It's a different game. You're acting as if it's a just a downgraded port or something, but it's a completely different game. It is still good, but it's not Wolfenstein, and shouldn't be judged by how much like Wolfenstein it is. No game will be as good at being Wolfenstein as Wolfenstein is, and no game will be as good at being Battlezone as Battlezone is. And no, I'm not being literal, I understand you're comparing them because they're both FPS games, but they still have different goals, they're trying to get you to have fun in different ways. One is meant to be a quicker experience you play in shorter bursts for high scores, one is meant to be a bit more of an adventure with more varying levels but less of a goal of perfection. That's not to say you can't still argue one is better than the other, but one doesn't go back in time and make the other worse at what it set out to do. All this stuff reeks of underage faggots who complain about old games not having tons of story and handholding or railroading, not realizing that those games, even in the same series, simply weren't intending to do those things. Donkey Kong isn't a big expansive adventure like Super Mario Bros. 3. It wasn't trying to be. Even its jump controls aren't as good, but the game was designed with them in mind, and you can argue Super Mario Bros improved jumping a lot, but nothing will retroactively somehow make Donkey Kong a bad game. Its a good game that arguably had elements from it improved upon in sequels.

[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Top] [Reply] / /

no cookies?