Poll: Can You Still Enjoy Classic Games Despite The Advancements Of Modern Games?

[flying_whimsy]

I usually define classic as the pre and post 3d eras; mostly because it's the one I grew up alongside. I don't have any problems playing games from either era, with the rare exception of games that came out during the transition from 2d to 3d. Let's just say that particular bit of gaming puberty was awkward and painful. I am not particularly nostalgic for the classic 2d stuff: it was waaaay too hard when I was a kid and had no reflexes or coordination.

Generally, the only time I can't play an older game is if there's something in the design that makes it too obnoxious to play: poor level design, awful controls, bad/cheap AI, that sort of thing.

 

[joest01]

I fall into the if the mechanics hold up camp. Graphics don't bother me as much although they can be distracting. More in early 3d gen games than in 8 or 16bit 2d era games.

And yes, Zelda OoT is a good example of poor aging on both accounts.

Oh good, I had no problem working with OoT, but many do, and I've been trying to find out why exactly.

If you don't mind, could you explain to me what is wrong with the mechanics? Any examples?

I am not sure I can give you what you are looking for. Link doesn't feel natural. I don't feel connected to him. The terrain feels even more unreal than it looks. When you walk up a log in Dark Souls you walk up a log. In OoT you find the one straight trajectory to move up. The sword has no weight. The enemy AI is simple. The talking bits are torture. I'd have to go back and play it to give you more details.

Maybe they should have gone for a more stat heavy system, those seems to age much better than the old action mechanics.

None of that takes anything away from the story or the boss battles.

Btw, I hate to admit it but I started on Metroid Prime 2 Echoes recently and I am not sure I can finish it. In that case maybe its the transistion of the GC controls to motion but it doesn't feel anywhere near as tight as Prime 3 Corruption.

 

[Kyrian007]

Many modern games don't even come close to providing me as much entertainment as games from prior generations have. Games today are handholding sightseeing tours, generally that play and resolve themselves requiring the player only need witness the "phowar awesome" skyboxes. That doesn't mean there aren't good games today or loads of terrible games back in the day. But I don't see many of the games of this generation becoming "classics" like sprouted from the 90's pc days or the PS1 and 2 era. Too "sequelized" and shallow for the most part these days.

 

[Nazulu]

I am not sure I can give you what you are looking for. Link doesn't feel natural. I don't feel connected to him. The terrain feels even more unreal than it looks. When you walk up a log in Dark Souls you walk up a log. In OoT you find the one straight trajectory to move up. The sword has no weight. The enemy AI is simple. The talking bits are torture. I'd have to go back and play it to give you more details.

Maybe they should have gone for a more stat heavy system, those seems to age much better than the old action mechanics.

None of that takes anything away from the story or the boss battles.

Btw, I hate to admit it but I started on Metroid Prime 2 Echoes recently and I am not sure I can finish it. In that case maybe its the transistion of the GC controls to motion but it doesn't feel anywhere near as tight as Prime 3 Corruption.

I guess I don't understand. I'm mean, fair enough, and it makes sense in the way it's not for you, but as criticism? I do appreciate it all the same.

I have to know how a log feels like a log. Is it because the sounds are effective and it moves appropriately?

The sword I'm trying to gauge. I like the way it's swung and the sound effects it makes. Maybe because there isn't any clever animations to give it's own special feel?

The simple enemy AI I can understand, but most games are like that back then, and even now. Even then the AI is still challenging, unless that isn't what you mean.

The dialogue/conversations are usually really basic boring clumps of cliche' fluff in most RPG's, and OoT is no exception. lol

What is stat heavy? Like altering your stats? That makes perfect sense. I don't know if it's suitable for every game though. Sometimes the action game challenges are perfectly molded around the particular movement speed, and I really don't want to see that in Super Metroid.

As for Metroid Prime 2, I have no idea. Have only played it with GC controllers and it's very much the same as the first. And I found both those games clunky, but still workable. It's very possible they didn't develop the motion controls to perfectly suit MP2's environment.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Absolutely, good games are good games, regardless of their age. Although I must admit there is a caveat to that rule:

I am more likely to enjoy an old game if it's one I'd already played around the time it was released. You see, outdated graphics don't bother me at all, but other aspects of a game, like clunky UI and controls, can hamper my enjoyment. I have far less patience nowadays when it comes to learning how to control a game. It's the reason why I can still immensely enjoy Deus Ex or Planescape Torment despite their archaic design by modern standards: I already knew how to play them. But I can't say the same for, say, System Shock 2 or Fallout, since I've only first played those years after release and had to learn them, which made their more outdated aspects all the more apparent to me.

It doesn't always happen though. I first played Masters of Orion II last year and had no problems whatsoever getting to grips with its UI and controls.

 

[Odbarc]

I find older games are far more enjoyable as the early consoles forced creativity for developers to work within a limited system. The push for graphics seems to still be going on and it's never been a lasting impression of quality.
I'd rather a fun game I can play again and again than a pretty cut-scene interactive movie many games have become.

Playing games from beginning to end multiple times, trying different strategies and items or imposing self limitations for the challenge. That's what I used to do with games.
Now it's more like 'getting through it' then putting it away forever.
The countless hours poured into Super Mario Kart.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I mostly play older games because the new batch of games coming out are just stories with a few button presses to confuse the player into thinking they are doing something. I never gave a shit about how something looks, it's what i'm doing that is important and the older games have many surprises. Modern games wouldn't know a surprise if it hit them in the face...they stick to formulas that have made other people big money and refuse to change because they are only in it for the money.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I played through System Shock 1 and 2 again recently.

SS1 hasn't aged well at all, but SS2 holds up in most ways barring graphics and UI.

I played the Battlefront beta and I enjoyed it while trying to get back into Battlefront 2 is like pulling teeth. I loved that game back on PS2 when playing with friends, but it has not aged well. That said, this doesn't mean I'm going to get the new Battlefront, for reasons outside the game but inextricably tied to it.

Just finished a playthrough of Deus Ex Human Revolution (Directors Cut). I swear the game didn't look as bad as it does now when I first played it years ago. But once I got past that fact, the core game is still really enjoyable for me, especially the Missing Link part which takes all the good of the original and cranks it up to 10.

I wanted to start up a new game of the original Deus Ex but a part of me is reluctant to do so. I know by the time I get to Hong Kong I'll be really into it again, but fuck... I hate the early parts of that game.

I played Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 over the last year. Other then graphics, having different stories and how the campaigns are laid out, the games are pretty pretty identical experiences. I still love the 2D sprites in the original though... I miss that era of RTS.

I finally got around to doing a full playthrough of EYE Divine Cybermancy. While not an old game a lot of people laud it for having an old school feel. If Old school feel to these people are great concepts and ideas sewn into poorly considered game design and fucking awful UI, I'll prefer to not go old school. Who thought horde mode style systems build into a game with RPG elements that restrict player versatility, Hacking that requires you to stop and play a Turn Based battle system that leaves you open to the never ending swarms of enemies, of which know exactly where you are at all times, and no matter how you change the "AI settings" in the options have impeccable aim and extremely long line of site, would be a good idea. On top of that the story is a mess even with reworked translations (the fucking original translations are fucking awful and it's not comical).

The game is also designed in such a way that you need to play it at least twice to get the true ending. Fuck off. This is also why Steam Reviews are rubbish. You'd swear this was some sort of diamond in the rough to some of these people. It isn't, it's a polished stone buried under a mountain of septic tank waste disposal.

So what does this have to do with the question being asked?

Well, Good games are good and bad games are bad and some good games become bad with age while others are either unaffected or suffer very little. It doesn't matter what era they are made in, some stuff works and is timeless, others are products of their time and fail to transition. Others are just shit, but it doesn't stop some people loving it dearly.

I can still enjoy old games even if they haven't aged well. The advancements in gaming are a mixed bag. Not all is bad, not all is good. Some games are brilliant others less so. It's mostly a subjective issue.

 

[Zaltys]

Depends on the genre and platform. Story-based games tend to age well.
Many RPGs, adventures (except FMV) and even strategy games are still fun even without nostalgia.

But I've recently tried playing NES and Gameboy classics for the first time (never had either platform as a kid), and so far I haven't got much enjoyment out of those. I'm also playing through the Amiga games library, which seems to have aged much better overall. At least the music's usually good..

 

[Halla Burrica]

I can absolutely enjoy older games even though technology has made them mechanically and graphically inferior (in fact my favorite game is more than 10 years old), but they need a certain something to really stand the test of time.
Like Super Mario Bros 3. Graphically it's of course dated, the jumping mechanics are less complicated than later games, it's irritating that you can't replay the levels even though there's an overworld map and not all levels are great. But it's just so neatly tied together, with a real heart and soul that I just can't help but smile as I go through the level, all ultimately joyful and creatively done. Punch out too. It's just such a charming and visually (as well as mechanically) rewarding game that I can totally look past the outdated NES checkpoint system and how the game recycles boss fights (that rematch with Don Flamenco is terrible).

Though some things only work for their time. I tried playing Another World, with the 20 years anniversary thing and I hated it and gave up after an hour. It's only notable for being early with telling an interesting story, but the gameplay is very dated and it uses point-and-click game logic, only without a cursor so you just run around in an empty room trying to press buttons on every little thing until something happens, which is about as rewarding as diving through miles of sewer water only to find a single nugget you can sell for about 3 dollars.

I think some people greatly exaggerate how much better the games of old are compared to today, how everything is "holding your hand", like having to run around like a headless chicken for 10 minutes before you figure out that you have to cast spells on certain items to transport you to other location, is better than being given a bit of guidance here and there. Some older games are in fact notorious for being cryptic about what you should and can do, even having NPCs lying to you. Another argument I find weak is that games being harder or more "complex" (by complex they very often mean you have more systems and more thingamajigs to play around with, often required to progress) equals being superior to other more "simple" games. Why exactly is being simple such a bad thing? I'm sure Dear Esther or Journey would have been "harder" and "more complex" if you had to fight demons from hell with a shotgun forged from the souls of the wicked and there were skill trees for each of your characters individual limbs, but would it really have fit with the rest of the game? Skyrim is easier than Morrowind? So what, The Elder Scrolls are about exploration and immersing yourself into a well-constructed world, what exactly is lost in lowering the amount of frustration that will inevitably be had with the lackluster combat system? The list goes on and on about games that received much fanfare, both critically and commercially, without needing to be "hard" or "complex", so I find it really derogatory when they're judged not on its own merits but on whether or not they can be called "hard" and "complex".

 

[Unspoken_Request]

It really depends. I still very much enjoy old JRPGs as well as most of my Nes and SNES library.

On the PC, I played Morrowind recently (for the first time) and thoroughly enjoyed it. Deus Ex is still an amazing game. I am also a huge fan of Baldur's gate and other infinity engine RPG (played them both recently and back in the day).

Yet, I tried playing fallout 2 last week. I just could not do it. It was not really the graphics though. It was the color, the art-style and the controls. I know it is a post-apocalyptic world, but there is still just way too much gray and browns.

I am also having some trouble getting into Ocarina of time on the 3DS. The controls are the major hurdle.