Not being able to get into older games.

[teamcharlie]

Peoples' biggest problem with playing old video games is the idea that those games are old. New is sexy. New promises bigger, better, faster, etc. They're $60 for a reason, right? Why else would the old games be on sale? But that doesn't make newer games more fun, or even mean that those promises will hold up to scrutiny once you actually play the game.

Try out the most revered games in a bunch of genres, regardless of how old they are, and see if you like them. You wont like everything, and not everything will have aged well, but you may find that what you like or don't has more to do with the game itself than with its age. This may also have the side benefit of getting you into a genre you might not have known appealed to you.

NB: an interesting visual style generally ages a lot better than cutting-edge graphics. Also, disagreeing with a bunch of other people on what games are fun does not mean that you are wrong.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

For me it depends more on complexity, graphics don't seem to be a barrier. I really like complex games and the further back you go, you get to a peak of complexity somewhere between 1989-1997. Before 1989 they didn't have the power to really create complex games so you have games like frogger and joust that are really simple, I can't play those games for more than 5 minutes, they don't have enough depth to engage me.

I find older games are really hit or miss. It's never so much the graphics, but the UI. You have some old games with very good UI and some with very poor ones. The other big determiner is any sequels or remakes. If someone tells me the original is better, I invariably find myself not likening the original much.

It was the case with fallout 1/2. I found them less fallouty then fallout 3 as odd as that sounds. On the other hand, I played the first X-com before the remake and found it glorious.

As far as Fallout is concerned it doesn't sound odd. Fallout 3 was a huge departure from the Fallout series, really huge, the tone is completely different, very little stayed the same from Fallout 1/2 and Fallout 3. They're so different in fact that I think a lot of people are kinda stuck on either side. The people who loved the original Fallout games generally think the new ones changed the formula so much that it doesn't quite feel like a Fallout game and people who loved Fallout 3 find it really hard to go back to the originals because they don't feel like Fallout to them. It's a sub-generational gap, both sides are really good but they don't go together, they don't feel like they're in the same series.

One of that bits that surprised me and annoyed me is that it wasn't really as different as most people said it was. I heard all kind of claims about how fallout 3 changed this or changed that, but that wasn't what I found when I investigated. The big one that stuck in my mind was the ghouls. I recall people complaining that fallout 3 turned ghouls into zombie ripoffs. Imagine my surprise when I made it to the necropolis and found ghouls acting even more like zombies then they were in fallout 3.

I have actually played a lot of old games after the fact. I know a lot of old school PC players who talk on and old about how the old versions are so much better. Old games are cheap so I try them out and write detailed explanations why they are wrong. The last game I tested was system shock. That one was kind of a neat mixed bag. When you compare bit to bit, bioshock crushes system shock, but as a whole I think system shock did it better.

 

[stroopwafel]

Metal Gear Solid comes to mind immediately. The visuals and controls just made the game a chore to play, so I just gave up and watched the rest of the cutscenes online. The story was interesting enough, but everything else was irritating me to the point where I just wanted to move on to the other games in the series. I feel like it's one of those games you have to grow up playing a lot to love.

Yeah, I think this is pretty much true. The only 'old' games I tend to enjoy are the games I already played at(or around) the time they came out. I think this is espescially true for games in the 3D 'transitioning' period like PS1/early PS2. I can't imagine someone going back to the original MGS and actually loving the gameplay. Say what you will about modern games but there is no doubt control mechanics, level overview/camera and UI have improved dramatically. And then I'm not even mentioning the graphics. For example I loved Deus Ex HR but couldn't get into the original Deus Ex for the life of me. The archaic design just put me off. Now had I played it at the time it orignally came out and not knowing any better, I would have probably enjoyed it.

Some games just have a timeless feel to them though. For example A Link to the Past and Super Metroid might have been released in the early '90s but I think these games are as good today as they have ever been.

 

[Dragonlayer]

While I have "gotten into" System Shock 2, I do think it has aged very poorly and if I wasn't determined to enjoy a sci-fi horror and a "classic" of PC gaming, I'd probably put it down. I think the real problem with my example is that I've played the later Shocks *and* I've seen so many examples in media where the good guy/gal helping you was dead/evil all along that what was probably a gasp-worthy twist back in the day doesn't faze me at all.

I haven't played the game for ages because I was killed by a psychic monkey and hadn't saved for ages. Out the fucking airlock you go, you little bastard....

 

[josemlopes]

Metal Gear Solid comes to mind immediately. The visuals and controls just made the game a chore to play, so I just gave up and watched the rest of the cutscenes online. The story was interesting enough, but everything else was irritating me to the point where I just wanted to move on to the other games in the series. I feel like it's one of those games you have to grow up playing a lot to love.

All that said, I would like to get my hands on Twin Snakes, then I would probably enjoy it more.

Weird, someone already even agreed with you but I dont find Metal Gear Solid 1 hard to get into at all. Metal Gear Solid 2 I totally get but the first one was a very simple game. You rarely had to use first person and the radar had a nice amount of distance so for the most of the time it would be like most top down games, like Zelda.

In MGS2 the maps didnt feel like they were made for that top down perspective and you had to use first person a lot more, with the first one with the exception of some few places they are all very simple, mostly squared corridors.
This is what is more common in MGS1

Spoiler

This is more MGS2

Spoiler

 

[Liquidprid3]

I don't know why, but I love older console games, but I can't really get into older PC games. I'm going to give Deus Ex a try next, as I loved HR, and they try System Shock 2 again.

 

[Maximum Bert]

If you like a game then you would presumably still like it regardless of whether you play it two days after release or ten years.

For myself, I simply can't get into any of the Infinity Engine D&D games. Planescape: Torment is the only one that's held my interest at all, for the rest of them everything about the actual gameplay always ends up turning me away after an hour or two. I've tried playing Baldur's Gate something like three times now, and every time I end up quitting in frustration after the fiftieth party death (small exaggeration).

I so want to like the Infinity engine games but the only 2 I have been able to play for more than about 2 hours is Planescape and Arcanum both of which I have now dropped Planescape because of the horrible gameplay and Arcanum because I lost interest in the gameplay and the rest of the game wasnt strong enough to get me to carry on. Baldurs gate I find impenetrable in the first you move so goddamn slow and combat is so bad and unsatisfying the second is way better but again that combat kills it for me.

I dont usually have much problem playing older games to be honest the only one I remember loading one up and it not being as great as I remember was Bubble Bobble on the C64 I just cant handle those controls anymore I have been too spoiled from Mario onwards.

Lots of old games sucked just like a fair amount of new ones only there are way more better and worse games in the past simply because thats where most games are. If you dont like a game dont play it why waste the time old or new I personally have strongly disliked critically acclaimed games that have been well received by the public many time I just wonder what people see in them and then move on.

 

[Madame_Lawliet]

While I have "gotten into" System Shock 2, I do think it has aged very poorly and if I wasn't determined to enjoy a sci-fi horror and a "classic" of PC gaming, I'd probably put it down. I think the real problem with my example is that I've played the later Shocks *and* I've seen so many examples in media where the good guy/gal helping you was dead/evil all along that what was probably a gasp-worthy twist back in the day doesn't faze me at all.

I haven't played the game for ages because I was killed by a psychic monkey and hadn't saved for ages. Out the fucking airlock you go, you little bastard....

Quick save constantly, invest your points in Repair and Maintenance (ignore all non-essential Psy abilities, most of them are useless), circle strafe around and use your wrench on melee-able enemies, that'll save you boatloads of ammo, and mod the crap out of it, that's probobly the best possible advice I could give in regards to good ol' Shock 2.

OT: It really is all about the individual person, their taste in games, and how the choice of game therin appeals to that person or not. For example I used to think that I could play any old school RPG until I tried to play Ultima VII, which I just could not get into, I don't think that has so much to do with the age of that game, I've played and beaten RPGS far older then U7, but the way that particular game is designed just doesn't click with me, the age doesn't really have anything to do with it. On the flip-side I didn't like any kind of strategy games for YEARS because they all just seemed way too complex and intimidating for me, but earlier this year I finally tried the original Dungeon Keepers and I fell in love with their more passive dungeon building gameplay and the general themeing of the games, things that in many ways are direct results of their age.
Also, many of my favorite games: Half-Life, Metal Gear Solid, Mario 64, are all in one way or another made all the more special to me by their place in history, and their aged gameplay has a certain charm to it that just keeps making me want to come back every so often (but of course that may be the nostalgia talking).

So yeah, I think it's all about the individual game, and the individual person playing it.

 

[Dragonlayer]

While I have "gotten into" System Shock 2, I do think it has aged very poorly and if I wasn't determined to enjoy a sci-fi horror and a "classic" of PC gaming, I'd probably put it down. I think the real problem with my example is that I've played the later Shocks *and* I've seen so many examples in media where the good guy/gal helping you was dead/evil all along that what was probably a gasp-worthy twist back in the day doesn't faze me at all.

I haven't played the game for ages because I was killed by a psychic monkey and hadn't saved for ages. Out the fucking airlock you go, you little bastard....

Quick save constantly, invest your points in Repair and Maintenance (ignore all non-essential Psy abilities, most of them are useless), circle strafe around and use your wrench on melee-able enemies, that'll save you boatloads of ammo, and mod the crap out of it, that's probobly the best possible advice I could give in regards to good ol' Shock 2.

Thanks for the advice, but I've yet to encounter a seriously challenging situation - its just that I got over-confident with the pace I was going through the game, forgot to save for a while, ran low on health and was blind-sided by a chimp (what a heroic death!).

Interesting that I was already doing all of the thingss you advised though!

 

[RJ 17]

This would be the reason why I have a tough time getting into Morrowind. The game has not aged well. The graphics are ugly, even for that time, the lack of dialogue is off putting, and the lack of waypoints can turn away a more lazy crowd. I've had the game in my steam Library for a while. I've played for about ten minutes, but got really bored and quit. Haven't gone back since.

That pretty much sums up my experience with Morrowind when I got it for Christmas when it came out for the regular XBox. "Played for 10 minutes, got bored, quit, never looked back."

OT: The moral of the story is that franchises (for the most part) change and evolve with each game they put out. Just because you like the more recent incarnations certainly doesn't mean you'll like the earlier incarnations. Case-in-point: I love me some Skyrim, and Oblivion even more. But for the life of me I just couldn't be arsed to get do anything at all in Morrowind...I don't know if I even made it off that slave boat that you start in before I said "Yeah I really don't feel like doing this..."

The reverse is also true, though. If you get into a series on the ground floor and follow it, you're not always going to appreciate where it ends up. That's how it is with me and Final Fantasy, at least. I grew up with Final Fantasy, FF II, and FF III (I refuse to call them 4 and 6 since it quite clearly said 2 and 3 on my SNES cartridges ). FF7 was fun, FF8 was "meh, ridiculous, plot-hole riddled story is ridiculous and riddled with plot-holes", FF9 bored me so horrendously I couldn't be arsed to play beyond the first disc, and FFX/X-2 officially killed my desire to ever play another FF game again...and I haven't since. Seriously, I rented X-2 and returned it 2 hours later saying that it didn't work and asked the guy if I could check out a different game.

From the general consensus that I've heard about the FF games since...I really haven't been missing out on much since I washed my hands of the franchise.

Captcha: "oh em gee"
*facepalm* Come on, Captcha...you're better than that...

 

[Mikejames]

Finally, the original Silent Hill. I played Silent Hill 3 and I loved it. My friend kept telling me how the original was so much better, so much more terrifying. So when I saw it on the PlayStation Store, I picked it up. This time it was entirely the graphics. Back in the PS era, I'm sure that game was terrifying, but after playing Silent Hill 3, the blocky textures, the clumsy controls, the lack of spoken dialogue, enemies that were in no way scary because of their appearance...the game hasn't aged well, and I simply could not bring myself to play it past the intro.

I could see how nostalgia might help SH1. The characters are a bit stiff, the combat was painful, and I only got the good ending after three tries when a friend told me the requirements.

But I did stick with it, and I think it opened up to some genuinely frightening moments, considering that everyone looks like they're made out of lego.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Depends on what you grew up with, i grew up gaming since Atari playing centipede. Thing is people can argue about old vs new games, but remember, the great titles released today will be in the same position in 20 yrs time. If you grew up with certain games then they get better control wise, its hard to go back. I love Morrowind more than Oblivion and Skyrim. But i think its easier to have played Morrowind, then Oblivion and Skyrim than it is to play Skyrim and then play Morrowind. I think you should just play the games you love and check out other peoples choices for classic games and play those classic games in the spirit in which they were made. As in dont compare them to games released today.

My brother is 17, when he was 15 i had him play Morrowind and C&C games. He loved them both and has effected the games he enjoys. Both those games i doubt he would have played if i hadnt of told him. So its all good.

Captcha - live in the now. (fair enough, ignore all old games people, captcha has spoken)

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I understand how you feel.

For me, it really is graphics. I know, I know, it's shallow and means I'm a terrible person, but there's simply a threshold on my ability to tolerate low quality graphics.

I think it may also be what Extra Credits mentioned, that the aesthetic use of the graphics is poor. I adore the first Fallout game, but cannot play games from a similar time or even later. I think this is because Fallout uses its limited graphics so incredibly well to portray atmosphere.

You're also right about it being more than just appearance though. I think older games have a combination of subtly different design decisions than we typically see in modern games. Some of it is the convenience, but other factors also have an impact. Little bits of mechanics here and there, differences in dialog and whatnot.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

My experience with Morrowind when I got it for Christmas when it came out for the regular XBox. "Played for 10 minutes, got bored, quit, never looked back."quote]

For me, i bought my xbox just because of Morrowind. Yeah, its a hard game to get into but put the time in and it really opens up. But if you didnt like it then it great you gave it ago. Im that way with shooters and beat em ups, both bore me after an hour or so unless the story is interesting.

 

[Darkmantle]

If you like a game then you would presumably still like it regardless of whether you play it two days after release or ten years.

There's a lot of truth in this, but I would say kids have a lot more perseverance in getting through clunky and tedious games that aren't expressly bad, either because of having more free time for messing around or not having access to as many video games in general.

For myself, I simply can't get into any of the Infinity Engine D&D games. Planescape: Torment is the only one that's held my interest at all, for the rest of them everything about the actual gameplay always ends up turning me away after an hour or two. I've tried playing Baldur's Gate something like three times now, and every time I end up quitting in frustration after the fiftieth party death (small exaggeration).

It certainly doesn't extend to every old game, though. I'd never played Final Fantasy VI for more than an hour or so before, but having started it over the past few weeks, it's really held up pretty well in my opinion, as far as top-down sprite-based JRPGs are concerned. And while I did grow up with them, I still find games like Sonic the Hedgehog, Banjo-Kazooie, and Star Trek: Birth of the Federation to be fun even to this day.

I'm going to say it's probably because you don't know how to play.

Now don't take that the wrong way it's actually not your fault. Those games are impenetrable to people unfamiliar with the systems (namely 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons) that they are based off of. And they really did very little to help the unfamiliar get into it. There is no word on the actual mechanical effects of the different ability scores during character creation, and after words you can only find them buried in the personal statistics page. Just a tonne of things like that.

They were made for one of two people as far as I can tell, DnD enthusiasts, or people who love playing a game with the Manual spread across their thighs. IIRC most of the information was included in the manual, but that's a bad practice the gaming industry took a while to grow out of.

If you are interested in retrying it, I recommend going to http://playithardcore.com/pihwiki/index.php?title=Baldur%27s_Gate . Check the stats section and the classes section. They will give you a general overview without spoiling to much, and have charts of the actual in game effects of different stats.

EDIT: Ha, just realized the appropriateness of my avatar

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I enjoy the old school Final Fantasy titles (1 through 6) and have made it a goal of mine to play and complete them all.

However, in terms of 7, 8, and 9, I really can't come around to playing them. I don't know why; they look interesting in playthroughs, the combat systems are great, the characters are surely interesting as hell (I thank Dissidia 012 for that), and I actually want to try them. The problem I think is that their graphics are really distracting to me. I normally try to not let them bother me too much, but those three titles haven't aged very well. The graphics are right on the middle of being Call of Duty: World at War for the Wii bad to Final Fantasy X awesome. Granted, their story, characters, gameplay, and moments are timeless, but the engine and game that they run on are not.

This isn't to say that I completely discredit any PS1 RPG; I love Legend of the Dragoon and it actually looks a lot better than any of those games in my opinion. I'm really just hoping that 7, 8, and 9 get some sort of re-release with updated graphics and then I think I'll be able to jump right in.

 

[shrekfan246]

I'm going to say it's probably because you don't know how to play.

Now don't take that the wrong way it's actually not your fault. Those games are impenetrable to people unfamiliar with the systems (namely 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons) that they are based off of. And they really did very little to help the unfamiliar get into it. There is no word on the actual mechanical effects of the different ability scores during character creation, and after words you can only find them buried in the personal statistics page. Just a tonne of things like that.

They were made for one of two people as far as I can tell, DnD enthusiasts, or people who love playing a game with the Manual spread across their thighs. IIRC most of the information was included in the manual, but that's a bad practice the gaming industry took a while to grow out of.

If you are interested in retrying it, I recommend going to http://playithardcore.com/pihwiki/index.php?title=Baldur%27s_Gate . Check the stats section and the classes section. They will give you a general overview without spoiling to much, and have charts of the actual in game effects of different stats.

EDIT: Ha, just realized the appropriateness of my avatar

I had considered that and I've already spent a good amount of time in the past wrapping my mind around the obtuseness of AD&D's rules.

It's not that.

I just simply don't like the implementation of the rules into a video game format. Temple of Elemental Evil sounds like the one I might be able to get into from a gameplay perspective, because it's turn-based and not 2nd Edition, but the narrative of that one doesn't sound interesting enough to pull me in. With Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc., I don't like the way the Real-Time-With-Pause combat plays out, and I haven't entirely nailed down why because I don't have too many problems with the similar systems used in Knights of the Old Republic, Neverwinter Nights II, or Dragon Age: Origins. Maybe it's the particular speed the combat moves at, maybe it's the clumsiness of control you have over the party members during combat, maybe it's starting at level 1 in a D&D world, maybe it is just AD&D, but every time I've tried I just get too frustrated by the early-game to be able to continue playing.

 

[Darkmantle]

I'm going to say it's probably because you don't know how to play.

Now don't take that the wrong way it's actually not your fault. Those games are impenetrable to people unfamiliar with the systems (namely 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons) that they are based off of. And they really did very little to help the unfamiliar get into it. There is no word on the actual mechanical effects of the different ability scores during character creation, and after words you can only find them buried in the personal statistics page. Just a tonne of things like that.

They were made for one of two people as far as I can tell, DnD enthusiasts, or people who love playing a game with the Manual spread across their thighs. IIRC most of the information was included in the manual, but that's a bad practice the gaming industry took a while to grow out of.

If you are interested in retrying it, I recommend going to http://playithardcore.com/pihwiki/index.php?title=Baldur%27s_Gate . Check the stats section and the classes section. They will give you a general overview without spoiling to much, and have charts of the actual in game effects of different stats.

EDIT: Ha, just realized the appropriateness of my avatar

I had considered that and I've already spent a good amount of time in the past wrapping my mind around the obtuseness of AD&D's rules.

It's not that.

I just simply don't like the implementation of the rules into a video game format. Temple of Elemental Evil sounds like the one I might be able to get into from a gameplay perspective, because it's turn-based and not 2nd Edition, but the narrative of that one doesn't sound interesting enough to pull me in. With Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc., I don't like the way the Real-Time-With-Pause combat plays out, and I haven't entirely nailed down why because I don't have too many problems with the similar systems used in Knights of the Old Republic, Neverwinter Nights II, or Dragon Age: Origins. Maybe it's the particular speed the combat moves at, maybe it's the clumsiness of control you have over the party members during combat, maybe it's starting at level 1 in a D&D world, maybe it is just AD&D, but every time I've tried I just get too frustrated by the early-game to be able to continue playing.

Just gonna say, ToEE has FANTASTIC implementation of the 3.5 rule set, but it's really a shitty, shitty game. Literally the combat is good and basically nothing else. It's very frustrating to play. Frequent game breaking bugs (that usually require fan patches to fix), crappy disjointed story, etc etc. Hell, I have to Console in a weapon for one of my characters, because the shops in the game randomly change their stock, and not ONCE in 2 levels did I find a dwarven axe.

But oh my god is the ruleset superbly done, all kinds of options are available, everything works beautifully in combat, I just wish it was attached to a better overall game. I'd give it a run just to experience the combat system, but YMMV on the actual game. If you do try it, don't be afraid to make liberal use of the console. I still hadn't found +1 weapons for my characters by the endgame, so I consoled some in (my party was level 5 at this point).

As far as Balders Gate goes, the early game can be really frustrating. You describe dying 50 times in the early game, and the same kind of things happened to me, I actually didn't like BG1 till about my 15th time playing it (although at that point you have to wonder if it's just stockholm syndrome) It's very hard to break through to where the game picks up a little steam, around about level 3. If you're interested at all , I recommend the Enhanced edition, or installing those mods that implement the BG2 quest map and Journal systems. Playing standard BG1 is really more trouble than it's worth

 

[Evonisia]

Finally, the original Silent Hill. I played Silent Hill 3 and I loved it. My friend kept telling me how the original was so much better, so much more terrifying. So when I saw it on the PlayStation Store, I picked it up. This time it was entirely the graphics. Back in the PS era, I'm sure that game was terrifying, but after playing Silent Hill 3, the blocky textures, the clumsy controls, the lack of spoken dialogue, enemies that were in no way scary because of their appearance...the game hasn't aged well, and I simply could not bring myself to play it past the intro.

I could see how nostalgia might help SH1. The characters are a bit stiff, the combat was painful, and I only got the good ending after three tries when a friend told me the requirements.

But I did stick with it, and I think it opened up to some genuinely frightening moments, considering that everyone looks like they're made out of lego.

Shattered Memories fixed so many of these issues, shame everyone just forgot about it. Granted if it had combat I imagine it'd be better (but blood on the Wii does sound a bit odd).