Games that haven't aged well

[Jonny879]

what are the games that aren't good as now you remember playing them in the past? for me it has t be Sonic adventure 2, the sonic and shadow stages are great but the all the other stages i feel are boring and too drawn out

[BANGsquared]

Super Mario 64:

Dem polygons.

[Auz]

Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow
The sprites look very ugly and the gameplay feels very unpolished. Psychic types were overpowered, Bug types were completely useless, and so on.

I used to play Red a lot when I was a kid, but nowadays I don't care for it at all anymore.

The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind (to a large degree)
The game is very slow, the animations look pretty ugly and the dice roll-system is kinda stupid. Also, I'll never understand why some people praise this game for not having a fast-travel option. All this walking around you had to do was sometimes tiresome as hell, especially when you had a Cliff Racer breathing down your neck after every step you take.

Still, I do consider it a pretty good game overall and it's main quest was very good. I just can't see myself replaying it though. I'd rather play Oblivion or Skyrim again instead.

At 4/1/13 08:11 AM, BANGsquared wrote: Super Mario 64:

Dem polygons.

I know polygons don't look so good anymore nowadays, but Super Mario 64 is still a fine game to me.

[Sword-of-Kings]

At 4/1/13 08:11 AM, BANGsquared wrote: Super Mario 64:

Dem polygons.

I don't know why, but I love the Nintendo 64's low polygon count and blurry textures.

I'm strange.

[naronic]

Do we need another one of these threads every fucking millisecond?

[Entice]

I'm more like, if it was good in 1990 it's still good now.

Good games are timeless.

[Crink]

At 4/1/13 10:33 AM, Sword-of-Kings wrote:

At 4/1/13 08:11 AM, BANGsquared wrote: Super Mario 64:

Dem polygons.

graphically, yes. but every other game from that era would have by your standards aged like shit, when in fact they play fine. mario 64 is still a blast to play

I don't know why, but I love the Nintendo 64's low polygon count and blurry textures.

I'm strange.

no ur not strange tbh

there's something very endearing about creative minds trying to make the best out of they have available. i guess it just pulls you back to a simpler time where bloom and motion blur weren't standards for a good game.

[Raab]

Final Fantasy VII.

I never played it back in the day.... and I kept hearing how awesome it was.... so I played it...

and it made my eyes bleed.

[Cootie]

The PS1/N64 era as a whole hasn't aged all that well except for a few standouts. Games before then are fine, but the primitive models that those games had just don't translate well today. It was a necessary step though.

[Dean]

At 4/2/13 04:02 AM, Raab wrote: Final Fantasy VII.

Currently playing through it just now for the first time. Well, I played it briefly at some point last year, but still. I'm still not sure I'd agree though. Sure, the people look like shit but the pre-rendered backgrounds and cut scenes aren't completely awful. Although I think it's unfair to say that a game like that hasn't aged well just because of the graphics, but I suppose some people just can't play a game with sub par graphics, which is understandable. Although there's so much more to FFVII than the graphics that I'm quite happy to overlook them.

I'm actually struggling to think of a game that has aged so badly that I couldn't play it any longer.

[JuicyRumpSteak]

At 4/1/13 10:33 AM, Sword-of-Kings wrote: I'm strange.

I bloody love Banjo-Kazooie. I mean I was a mere child but I knew it for what it was.

A godsend.

[sweet21]

Golden eye 007 aged like shit. I mean, no crosshair? Who would have heard of such a thing? A lives system in an entire level? .Jpeg images glued to character models?

On the same note medal of honor everything from front line and before for the same reasons.

[GrizzlyOne]

Half Life 2

when it first came out people mainly loved it for the graphics, since the graphics are "meh" standards now, people look at the actual gameplay, and the first half just has so much filler that it made the game itself age bad.

Half Life 1 on the other hand has aged very well.

[DeIirium]

anything on ps1/ps2, NES and all those gay old consoles with shit graphics, pretty sad that people still play that crap when there are much better games these days

[Hikky-Dikky]

At 4/2/13 05:46 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Half Life 2

when it first came out people mainly loved it for the graphics, since the graphics are "meh" standards now, people look at the actual gameplay, and the first half just has so much filler that it made the game itself age bad.

Half Life 1 on the other hand has aged very well.

Yeah, no. The graphics still look great nowadays.

[Painbringer]

The console version of GTA IV (4).

Not only do the graphics look cartoonish (especially when seen through in-game TV or internet) but everything about it just feels so 2007 - MySpace, big and heavy tablet computers, heightened terror alert, etc.

[naronic]

At 4/2/13 05:46 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Half Life 2

when it first came out people mainly loved it for the graphics, since the graphics are "meh" standards now, people look at the actual gameplay, and the first half just has so much filler that it made the game itself age bad.

people mainly loved it for the graphics

first half just has so much filler that it made the game itself age bad

You really have no idea what you're talking about when you mention Half life or Valve in general. Just the tip of an opinion on the outside of your little bubble.

[Painbringer]

The original Half-Life still looks better than its Source (engine) port.

I don't know how they converted it, but some the lights and textures just don't seem to work properly.

[GrizzlyOne]

At 4/2/13 07:24 PM, HikarutheHedgehog wrote:

At 4/2/13 05:46 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Half Life 2

when it first came out people mainly loved it for the graphics, since the graphics are "meh" standards now, people look at the actual gameplay, and the first half just has so much filler that it made the game itself age bad.

Half Life 1 on the other hand has aged very well.

Yeah, no. The graphics still look great nowadays.

In my honest opinion, I think HL1 is better, I haven't played the episodes but judging from the gameplay videos I've seen of them the episodes look to be much better too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKmnOlXM3F0

[GrizzlyOne]

At 4/2/13 07:47 PM, naronic wrote:

At 4/2/13 05:46 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Half Life 2

when it first came out people mainly loved it for the graphics, since the graphics are "meh" standards now, people look at the actual gameplay, and the first half just has so much filler that it made the game itself age bad.

people mainly loved it for the graphics

first half just has so much filler that it made the game itself age bad

You really have no idea what you're talking about when you mention Half life or Valve in general. Just the tip of an opinion on the outside of your little bubble.

When people talk about why Half Life 2 was so great for it's time, One of the two main reason is for graphics and physics.

That's why I like HL1 better, the graphics may be outdated but it doesn't change the fact the game absorbs you so much due to it's great pacing that you care for every security guard and scientist clone, also, there are a lot of people who said Ravenholme was creepy, that is nothing compared to the first few levels of Half Life 1 and Xen, play those levels at 2 in the morning with volume up.

[Sense-Offender]

It seems that the search bar is pretty outdated. Nobody uses that thing anymore.

[naronic]

When people talk about why Half Life 2 was so great for it's time, One of the two main reason is for graphics and physics.
That's why I like HL1 better, the graphics may be outdated but it doesn't change the fact the game absorbs you so much due to it's great pacing that you care for every security guard and scientist clone, also, there are a lot of people who said Ravenholme was creepy, that is nothing compared to the first few levels of Half Life 1 and Xen, play those levels at 2 in the morning with volume up.

How about the fact that it integrated physics into game-play in a way no other game accomplished before with the gravity gun? Or the Source Engine which stayed fresh and productive for years and years to come?
While graphics and physics are both reasons why people were obsessing over it at the time, you have to realize that's because they were both major milestones in the games industry, things apart of this game that changed it forever.
When you hear all this babble today about modern games that emphasize being "cinematic", you can trace at least half of that right back to Half life; Half life 2 especially.

I'd say Half life 2 can espouse the top notch pacing tab as well, with a completely different setting, situation and time period no less. A minute into the game/20 steps into the first map in the game world and I already have a clear idea of what this world is like and what must be done.
Elements of game-play were introduced at just the right time to mix harmoniously with the narrative curve. Being chased defenselessly up a staircase, to engaging in random street fights, and escape by way of motorboat through dangerous sewers with only a marginally powerful weapons until you reach Eli's hideout gives you the feeling of genuine vulnerability, (especially if the difficulty is all the way up) so there goes your slow start thesis.

You may hold any opinion you want, that's your right. I will defend Half life though.

[GrizzlyOne]

How about the fact that it integrated physics into game-play in a way no other game accomplished before with the gravity gun?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hyLl3ma30Q

half life 2 didn't invent a gun that used gravity in video games.

[naronic]

At 4/2/13 10:06 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

How about the fact that it integrated physics into game-play in a way no other game accomplished before with the gravity gun?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hyLl3ma30Q

half life 2 didn't invent a gun that used gravity in video games.

It did
And that video was showing off a MOD, not it's original gameplay

[naronic]

fucking link,
Anyway here's where it was supposed to take you

[Sense-Offender]

That kid Grizzly is obsessed with Half Life 2. He must secretly like it.

[GrizzlyOne]

At 4/2/13 10:25 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: That kid Grizzly is obsessed with Half Life 2. He must secretly like it.

I didn't say it was that bad, I just think it's grossely overrated and HL1 is better.

[Eltelelel]

Monopoly on the SEGA. I thought it was cool to play monopoly on a system back than, but I dont like the AI that much and the sound of the rolling dice is just annoying.

[malachi117]

At 4/3/13 12:09 AM, Eltelelel wrote: Monopoly on the SEGA. I thought it was cool to play monopoly on a system back than, but I dont like the AI that much and the sound of the rolling dice is just annoying.

Most console versions of board games have ended up being pretty sub-par.

[SoulMaster71]

At 4/1/13 09:59 AM, Auz wrote: Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow
The sprites look very ugly and the gameplay feels very unpolished. Psychic types were overpowered, Bug types were completely useless, and so on.

This, a thousand times over. These games were great at the time (except Yellow, that one was a gimmicky anime cash-in that kinda blew), but having played newer installments in the franchise, I really can't go back anymore. Even Gold, Silver, and Crystal, while significantly more polished than Generation 1, is hard to play from a more modern perspective. Graphically there's no problem, I don't mind that the sprites are outdated... But you never realize just how huge things like the running shoes, or walking up to water/trees/waterfalls and pressing A to get a prompt for HM use instead of having to go through the party menu, or the many story improvements that started happening in Gen3, or better grinding systems are until you go back and try to re-play the games from before they were introduced.

Also, have any of you played any of the Shin Megami Tensei games? Maybe a few of you, one or two who have picked up the Persona games? OK, who here has gone back, fired up the SNES emulator, and tried going through the English fan translation of the original Shin Megami Tensei? It's OK, but it doesn't hold up well against more recent entries in the franchise. Being introduced through Strange Journey on the DS and going back to the original is a lot like a player who first played Pokémon in Generation 5 trying to go through Red and Blue, or a Zelda player who started with or after Ocarina of Time playing the NES original.

On that note, this will likely be a lot more familiar to everyone else here: The Legend of Zelda on NES. Sort of. It's less of an example than the other two, since it's still decent, but in contrast to the rest of the franchise that sprung out of it, it's got a lot of Early Installment Weirdness going on that, combined with the original's significantly higher difficulty level, really makes it not stand up as well in comparison to how good some of its follow-ups are.