Great games that have aged horribly?

[Yoshi178]

Mario Kart 64. was fantastic in the 90's but i can't go back to it now. compared to the newer games the controls feel like absolute shit. they feel really outdated now when i go back to play it.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Resident Evil 4. Now, put down your pitchforks and flaming torches and listen. Resident Evil 4 is a great game, it was when it first came out on the Gamecube and it still is now. However, there is something that seemed revolutionary at the time. But hasn't aged particularly well and that is the controls. I won't apologize for having got used to modern dual stick control schemes, but having played this game recently, trying to get my head around just using the one stick to completely control Leon is a pain in the arse. Its not totally unusable and I eventually I got used to it again, but how anyone can say that it is good is beyond me.

RE4 was always best on the Wii for a reason.

As to OP, game aging boils down to the same two issues most of the time - Controls and UI. System Shock and its UI that feels like someones taking sand paper to your eyes

While I understand the comments about quest marker in newer games, this game (and Morrowind) show why they became necessary. Game creators cant write directions to save themselves. Also SS has massive arrows pointing this way so its partially gives you a quest marker. Then it let you find that needle in the haystack, which is frustrating. (I played it again a couple of months ago. I couldn't remember what motherboard I needed. had to track back and forth. I gave up and looked it up onine.)

I was referring more to...

That mess.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

OT: The original Deus Ex. Try playing it without mods. I dare you.

I still like it and do play it without mods from time to time Guess I am already put-him-out-of-his-misery old geezer of a gamer.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

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.

actually gameplay mechanics do age so do graphics. what never age is level design. for example I consider original Deus Ex and System shock 2 one of the GOAT but now they do feel outdated.

some games never age. Half life never age and still play amazing. so do FEAR. so do Max payne 1.

 

[dscross]

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.

actually gameplay mechanics do age so do graphics. what never age is level design. for example I consider original Deus Ex and System shock 2 one of the GOAT but now they do feel outdated.

some games never age. Half life never age and still play amazing. so do FEAR. so do Max payne 1.

I really do think it's in the eye of the beholder. For example, my little nephew still plays on my old N64. He absolutely loves Golden Eye, which people say has aged. I think if I was young again (when I first played it) I would still love it. But personally, I'm not into it now. I've sort of addressed this a bit further up the thread.

 

[Squilookle]

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.

Thank. You.

I couldn't agree more. Also if someone says a game has aged poorly, but is saying that after giving it a go for 5 minutes after not playing it for 10 years, then they're full of crap.

 

[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.

 

[sXeth]

We'd have to define how something ages horribly.

Gameplay doesn't change. If the gameplay has "Aged" its because the pools gotten deeper and its no longer at the top of the shallow pool. You can acknowledge that technical capabilities weren't at the same capacity, but that doesn't magically elevate the old game from its issues.

Graphics is the obvious go-to, but there's clearly a large swathe of folks who don't find the graphics necessarily an issue. There's literally new games that come out aping the old games graphics. Weird awkward late 90s/early 2000s 3D seems to be the main one that is considered actually bad (Other then the N64 aesthetic, which we're seeing games trying to mimic now)

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I'm not really sure how so many people can say that games aging themselves out of quality isn't possible. Video games just like any other form of media are constantly evolving and are based on a number of different factors and resources. This process happens in other forms all the time.

Just as the first example that comes to my mind- the 1989 Batman movie with Keaton and Nicholson. At the time, with the technology at their disposal and the talent involved, Burton directed an almost universally acclaimed comic book movie at a time wheen you didn't see much of that. Fast forward to today after modern animated and live action Batman films and the Keaton era just doesn't hold up anymore. What was once considered the pinnacle of the genre and an accurate representation of the source material is now looked at as quaint and campy. It's not nearly as engaging a watch now as it was in 1989, but it was an influential and good film when it was released.

How is this any different than games? Movies, games, books, comics, TV shows, none of them are exempt from the forward march of technology and time. Oblivion's graphics were mind-blowing upon release and look like muddy watercolors now. Ocarina of Time's 3D overworld and dungeons were revolutionary at the time but now it feels like the game has a little too much filler and unnecessary backtracking (At least in my opinion). But that doesn't mean they are bad or were never good, just that certain aspects haven't stood up to new modern standards. If you can't stomach to play them for a few hours I think it's more likely your tastes have changed and you've become accustomed to modern tech and practices that weren't available at the time the game came out.

It is not reasonable to view games or any other type of media in a vacuum and ignore their place in history and the limitations that went into their creation.

OT: To me, a lot of games that have "aged badly" are from the N64 era. The advent of dual analog sticks really transformed the console experience. Mario 64 and Ocarina of time are both fucking amazing games but they would both really benefit from the ability to manipulate the camera with a stick rather than the C buttons. On the PC side I feel like a lot of the Total War games have a pretty aggressive mid-life crisis. The older games look like hammered shit and the UIs are hideous. Some people say the newer games are a little too streamlined but I for one appreciate the much clearer interfaces.

 

[CaitSeith]

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.

Then why do you bother to comment in the first place? You might as well just wrote "EZEKIEL WAS HERE".

 

[Casual Shinji]

I more or less agree with Ezekiel here. If you never want to play it, it probably wasn't that good in the first place - or it's not your type of game now. I feel like games can only really age in terms of graphics, because everything else was intentional for that specific type of game. Poor graphics, I think, most gamers should be able to live with if they like how it plays. I mean, most gamers don't play games just because they look nice.

In terms of gameplay, people who say things like 'this game hasn't aged well' when they are playing it a long time after release often are unfamiliar with the mechanics when compared to modern games. They'll often say 'it's aged badly' because they don't like the mechanics or controls, but that's preference and doesn't mean it's 'aged badly'. Take the tank controls in Resident Evil. It was designed that way specifically to suit the fixed camera angles and to take control away from the player for survival horror reasons. It's just a bit diffierent and a matter of preference - it's not 'aged'.

Also, you have to take into consideration that your tastes may have changed as YOU aged and you only like it for the memories. That does happen.

Technology improves, therefor games improve, meaning games that came before said improvements have aged. Unless ofcourse you feel games haven't improved in terms of controls and mechanics in the last 30 years.

To take your Resident Evil example: Remember how RE2 didn't have a quick-turn, and required you to press the action button to go up stairs? And how RE3 did have a quick-turn, and allowed to walk up and down stairs freely? That's an improvement, and shows that RE2 has aged mechanically compared to RE3.

 

[Silvanus]

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

Games don't age? That would make them incredibly unique among art forms; what gives them this magical quality that eludes film, literature and music?

For this to be true, it would also have to be true that more advanced technology does not open up any more avenues for design, control schematics or graphical fidelity.

 

[dscross]

I more or less agree with Ezekiel here. If you never want to play it, it probably wasn't that good in the first place - or it's not your type of game now. I feel like games can only really age in terms of graphics, because everything else was intentional for that specific type of game. Poor graphics, I think, most gamers should be able to live with if they like how it plays. I mean, most gamers don't play games just because they look nice.

In terms of gameplay, people who say things like 'this game hasn't aged well' when they are playing it a long time after release often are unfamiliar with the mechanics when compared to modern games. They'll often say 'it's aged badly' because they don't like the mechanics or controls, but that's preference and doesn't mean it's 'aged badly'. Take the tank controls in Resident Evil. It was designed that way specifically to suit the fixed camera angles and to take control away from the player for survival horror reasons. It's just a bit diffierent and a matter of preference - it's not 'aged'.

Also, you have to take into consideration that your tastes may have changed as YOU aged and you only like it for the memories. That does happen.

Technology improves, therefor games improve, meaning games that came before said improvements have aged. Unless ofcourse you feel games haven't improved in terms of controls and mechanics in the last 30 years.

To take your Resident Evil example: Remember how RE2 didn't have a quick-turn, and required you to press the action button to go up stairs? And how RE3 did have a quick-turn, and allowed to walk up and down stairs freely? That's an improvement, and shows that RE2 has aged mechanically compared to RE3.

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 not showing any improvements at all.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

 

[dscross]

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.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

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.

 

[dscross]

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.