Can They Stand The Test of Time?

I will be posting a series of mini reviews on games from years gone by and seeing if they have stood the test of time. This is me putting my childhood on the line for your enjoyment, be aware of my sacrifice. So, we kick things off with:

Doom 3

What they originally said

At the time of release, Doom 3 was a technological marvel. Graphically, few games carried the intensity, atmosphere and lighting at a time when a lot of this was quite novel. The engine would inspire a tonne of copycats, the art direction would do the same. It received an overwhelmingly positive response, with an 87 average on metacritic. Almost all reviewers raved about the latest edition in the fabled series.

Outside of the graphics, the gameplay was so different to what gamers had become accustomed to with the Doom series. Gone was the arena shooter origins, this was a first person survival horror. It was entirely unique for the time. The way it looked certainly helped too. This was the must have FPS of the mid-00s, alongside Half Life 2 of course. They said it was great.

Does it hold up today?

In all honesty, the answer is a yes and a no. Graphically, maxed out, it looks damn good, even a decade or so later. We have obviously seen big graphical leaps in the FPS genre but there is still something dark and beautiful about the dimly lit, metallic corridors and trails of blood. Not to mention the misshapen monstrosities which jump out at you from the shadows. The art direction has clearly inspired Doom 4, or Doom as it labels itself.

The gameplay however, leaves a lot to be desired. With the fluidity of motion we've had from the Crysis series and the set pieces of a Call of Duty or Battlefield, this all feels so tame and at times, boring. Go here, shoot that, open this door, rinse and repeat. And lots of back tracking. In 2016, it just didn't hold my attention the same way it did back then.

Should I still play it?

If you can find a cheap deal, namely a Steam sale, then yeah, why not. It's a cool way to pass a couple hours and in short dosages, is still entertaining and gory. However, it isn't going to hold your attention for hours on end and if you're looking for that, you're better off looking for a new FPS.

I don't think Doom3 received the appraisal it deserved back then or years later. People have always called it linear, repetitive - but I disagree. I thought the combat was satisfying and there WAS variety in the enemies and tactics.

Okay, maybe after playing the expansion it started to feel a bit worn, but overall a great game.

That said, I would expect much more from a 2016 game. I think the new Doom will be great - the single player, that is.

Doom got 8s and 9s across the board. It got all the praise it deserved back then. It's definitely still a fun game at times but far more repetitive now then it was back then. Just about holds up imo.

Fluidity of Crysis dear god lol.

Yeah, close enough I suppose. But I do remember a few haters.

Yeah, I thought that comment was a bit odd too. I mean Doom 3 had way more fluidity than crysis unless I'm remembering something wrong!

Maybe I'm thinking more of Crysis 2 and there is noway Doom 3 is more fluid than that. Keep in mind, I'm talking of the fluidity of movement. You could slide across, shoot some guys, jump up, take a giant leap, shoot some more guys, land and slide again, all in one fluid, point A to B massacre. Especially the mp, which just had a bunch of guys sliding across the ground shooting lol

Come to think of it, that was definitely Crysis 2.

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

What they originally said

MGS3 stands with a whopping 91 on metacritic and was a huge critical and commercial success at the time. Many hailed it as the best MGS game of all time and possibly the best example of a stealth game there has ever been. Critics complimented it on graphics, art design, story (a bit convoluted but thankfully less meta than MGS2) and of course, gameplay. It seemed the introduction of an outdoor environment and physical camouflage and taken MGS3 to a new level. Technically and artistically.

Does it hold up today?

Like many games of the era, the controls are an absolute horror. The camera is the worst part, with the right analogue stick not doing much. You can basically move it a bit to the right, left, up or down. This often leaves enemies and other environmental factors off screen, to such an extent that you have no idea where you are going. Add to this the cumbersome movement of Snake and the pressure sensitive controls, which never seem to work the way you like. 3 separate functions are linked to the o button alone, each of which are dictated by how you press that button. This easily leads to you wanting to choke an enemy but end up throwing him.

The environment, much lauded at the time also fails to impress. It sounds alive and going up against a crocodile or snake is simple but interesting. However, it's essentially a face lift. The entire jungle is just one long corridor. The metal is replaced by green. It's a clever little trick which had me going when i was 14 or 15 but now it just comes across as cheap.

Having said all that, story wise, this is the best game in the series, especially after the disastrous efforts of MGSV. Plus, there is still a lot of fun to be had, as long as you can stay patient with the controls. Shooting beehives, hiding in mud, crawling through rat infested tunnels and blasting guys with shotguns is a thrill, even 12 years later. It's nowhere near as well made as MGS4 and it certainly doesn't have the smooth controls and menu/options of MGSV but it makes up for it with an engaging adventure.

Should I still play it?

Yes, if only for the story and if you are patient enough to not destroy your controller. Also, be ready for some murky, blurry graphics where sometimes you can't even make out the enemies and a camera straight from hell. It's no longer a great game and it may spoil your nostalgic view.

MGS 3 is my personal favorite in the series. I think it has the best balance of gameplay with the ludicrousness that Kojima is known for. Although to say it's the best implementation of stealth is totally false. There has yet to be a game that outdoes the first two Thief games in terms of pure, no filler stealth. Most games offer combat alternatives, which means that stealth is not required. In Thief, it's sneak around or die. No other option. Obviously there's freedom in how you explore levels and get around obstacles (do you run up behind the guard and knock him out or do you snipe him from afar?) but at the end of the day only stealth will ensure your survival. No other game manages to do that as well as the first two Thief games.

Do you think the gameplay still holds up? I played through MGS3 on the ps2, without the updated/HD versions etc and the ocntrols are almost unplayable at times and the camera is an absolute bitch. It's game that was great at the time and also my perosnal fave but MGS4 has far over taken it and even MGSV has better gameplay and environments.

I've always loved Doom 3 and thought people were too critical of it.

Honestly, Doom 3 and Quake IV were two of the best "vanilla" shooters I've played, at the time, for a while. I mean they did absolutely nothing special, but as far as the fundamentals went, they nailed it. Good story, awesome weapons, gore gore gore, and responsive controls.

I'll never forget the first hour of Doom 3, nor the part in Quake IV where they turn you into a Strogg.

@soul_starter: I thought it was fun enough. The controls are pointlessly complex but I still find it enjoyable. I played it for the first time a few years back and found it a bit clunky but fun.

I usually don't dabble with older games I haven't played because most of them haven't aged well. However, I played Half-Life 2 fairly recently and I had as much fun playing it as I would with any modern game. Maybe it's too easy of a game to bring up as far as games that have aged well go, but I was genuinely impressed with it for it being a game 10 years old or so. It was definitely way ahead of its time.

I don't think D00M III was even good on its release. It 'was' a technical marvel, but that's about it.

Glorified tech-demo in my opinion.

With that; when I played the first two D00Ms it was already a debate of ''do they hold up?'' I loved the level design, but will admit alot of mechanical things I had to 'deal with' because they're so primitive compared to the FPS had played. So does the first two hold up? In areas but overall no. You need to look past key features that have become second nature in the genre.

Far better games that have stood the test of time. Such as-

Resident Evil 4, Devil May Cry 3, Suoer Mario Bro 3, Castlevania SotN, *list goes on

Just calling it fun doesn't make it the best in the series then, as MGS4 is just as fun if not more so, looks better, has better controls and overall, an interesting story. So surely MGS4 is better?

Somebody brought it up and this was next on my list:

Half Life 2

What they originally said

96...let that sink in for a second. 96 is the mean metacritic score, taking in 81 games critics. This game received 5 stars and 10/10s from numerous magazines (remember those?) and gaming sites, from Europe to Japan by way of the US. It was a quite remarkable achievement. Graphically, few games matched the way it looked and the physics engine employed. In fact, after HL2, every game wanted to show off their own "advanced physics engine"...the reality is, no one matched it for years. Universally acclaimed.

Does it hold up today?

Graphically, the game falls short of what we've seen in the years that have followed, what with the Crysis series, all the exceptional work done by Naught Dog and so on but it doesn't look ugly, like some other games. In fact, it's still passable and runs damn smooth, without any frame rate or texture pop in issues. Playing this in 2015 was a far smoother experience than playing Skyrim or Battlefield upon release.

In terms of controls, I have literally zero complaints. The mouse and keyboard handles like any modern shooter and the reality is, a lot of what we see now from FPS developers, in terms of controls, level design and story production was first pioneered either by HL2 or its predecessor. The controls being in line with modern games, it's easy to jump straight in and not have to readjust physically to a bygone age. Give the game a visual upgrade and it could be re-released as a very modern shooter.

Story wise, it's still pretty good. Not a great, in depth script like you may have seen in other games at the time but the likable characters (oh Alyx), still brilliant facial animation and the ever satisfying gravity gun make this a terrific package. It was a great game over a decade ago and is still a great game today. The pinnacle of FPS in my opinion.

Should I still play it?

Yes. Just go on steam and do it all over again.

I really liked Doom 3 on release. It was a clever change in pace to the formula but it was very much, a game of its time, like the early MGS games or 2D Sonic.

I haven't played Resi 4 in almost a decade and I don't think I have the PS2 disc anymore but I would bet it has aged quite well, simply because most post Resi4 3rd person shoot em ups continue to copy that formula.

@soul_starter: If you liked D00M III? Don't let someone like me take that away from you, it's just my view on the game.

I was a very late D00M and DII player, and what I enjoyed was the level design (maps). DIII did not do this very well in my opinion, and overdid the Imps teleporting around the narrow corners.

If you liked that? That's fantastic. Wish I could have liked it, but it just made me sad and felt cheap and tacky.

What I find so remarkable about half life 2 is that its such a durable game. Desing wise Is not surpassed to this day. Everything moves naturally and triggers are hidden masterfully. I still cant get past Bioshock infinite's imersion breaking button prompts. Press this to play the guitar, press that to get elizabeths attention, and yada yada yada. Infinite felt artificial.

One other thing I find incredible is that though the graphics show their age(situation improved by various updates) The art is still going strong, contributing the maximum to the incretible distopian atmosphere. Can anybody forget the first time they saw the menu unblurring to the city 17's plaza, or the G-man talking to them in the intro?

@PETERAKO: Agreed, agreed, agreed!

With the recent release of Doom 4 (I know it's missing the "4" but let's be real) I thought back to when I played through the original last year and decided to write it up.

Doom

What they originally said

There was universal approval for the original Doom upon its release in 1993. If it wasn't the game play being praised, then it was the graphics and sound design. The praise only mounted in the years that followed and Doom is regarded as one of the most influential video games of all time. It pushed the idea of a fast paced shoot em up with key exploration. Gore was present and brought into the mainstream, following hot on the heels of the equally gory Mortal Kombat. Doom was not just loved by critics and fans, it was influential to pop culture and the gaming industry as a whole.

Does it hold up today?

Ok, let's get the "look" of the game out of the way. By modern standards it looks plain horrible. Flat corridors, flat characters, flat everything. But get past the exterior and you are in for an absolute treat. The controls are still smooth and fluid, with character movement holding as well or better than just about any other FPS out there. This isn't the slow paced, move from cover to cover shooting on offer from COD or Battlefield. This is all about clearing a room full of demons, with as few shots as possible, taking as little damage as possible. It's the ultimate in FPS design.

The levels however suffer. They feel a bit simple by modern standards and the backtracking, which was still evident in Doom 3, is here in full force. Having said that, the constant stream of enemies, a brutally satisfying shotgun and consistent movement and momentum, you barely notice. I will repeat, this is a game all about movement. If you think about it, it's ab it like Mirror's Edge before that was a thing. The horizontal aiming, the simplistic graphics, the kinda stupid enemies have all been surpassed by modern shooters, most of which got their ideas from this game but the importance of movement has rarely felt this good. And with that, it still manages to shine.

Should I still play it?

Yes. Experience something modern gaming can not provide.

I can vouch for what that guy said about fluidity. Crysis was quite playable even if framerates were in the mid 20's while Doom 3 was far more laggy if its framerates were in the same range.

Comparing games I had at the time I first played Crysis, Crysis at 30 fps played much better than say, ES: Oblivion at 45 fps.

Doom levels simple by today's standards?

No mate.

I wasn't talking about framerates (although you may be right about them) I was talking about gameplay experience and character movement/ability. I'm not a tech whore who is that bothered about framerates unless they severely block the playability of the game so 30fps or 60fps, I don't give a damn tbh.

Most definitely. They can be ab it maze like but they are nothing compared to the types of missions, multi layered paths, multiple objectives, environments and styles you'd get in the best of the best of modern games. Heck, compare it to some of the top FPS on recent times, those Doom levels do come across as a bit simplistic. I'm not saying that makes them bad but it's just a technical drawback of the early 90s.

I love going back and playing old games. I've just finished a couple rounds of botzone in Killzone 3. Last night I finished some missions in Red Dead Redemption. I just started Doom 1 (1993) from the Doom 3 BFG on Steam and I'm loving the old-school feel. Basically, I was scared that getting into this current generation would have me completely forget the old games I still have and focus on the super graphics and gameplay in Dark Souls 3, The Witcher 3, Bloodborne, Fallout 4, etc, but thankfully I still play these old gems from PS3, Wii, Gamecube, and PC mid 2000s eras like when I first got them years ago. Take F.E.A.R. for example. That game is 10 years old now, but it is still one of my favorite games because of how intense the combat is and the A.I. still goes unmatched to this day.

Another thing I would like to point out is that those shooters in the mid-2000s had a similar feel. I find it hard to explain but I know it when I play it. Basically I'm talking about Doom 3, Quake 4, F.E.A.R. 1, Prey, Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, and Half-Life 2. Whenever I play one of these games, I get that same feeling. That dark, mature, brooding atmosphere, a feeling of nostalgia, and they all seem to feature things going on in the background that add to the game in some way such as radios just sitting there chatting on about some news story or voicemails on the answering machine (what's an answering machine, right?) or on a PDA which shed some light on characters and side stories going on before or during the game's events. I don't know if others get this same feeling that is kinda hard to pinpoint as to what it is, but I definitely get it playing anyone of the aforementioned games and it just feels...maybe realistic or like I'm there within it. I kind of sound crazy but I felt like I would share this unusual comment with you all.

@poe13: Yeah, I know that feeling. But it could be that some of those games were just exceptionally good!!!

@soul_starter: I mean, for me personally, I have played Twin Snakes, 2, 3, and Peace Walker. That's my experience with the series. I enjoyed the first a lot, although it was fairly linear and had cutscenes that went on for too long. 2 just became ridiculous by the end to the point where I can't really tell you what happened in relation to the overall story of the series, and a lot of the gameplay elements felt a bit too strict for the claustrophobic setting. Plus, the ending was simply ridiculous. It was like three and a half hours, three of which were cutscenes loaded with twists that were confusing as hell.

In contrast, 3 had more open environments, allowing a bit more freedom with how you approach things. The only really long cutscenes were in the beginning and end, whereas all the others felt just long enough without overstaying their welcome. The story was also a lot more straightforward, but still complex enough to give it that MGS feeling.

If I'm going based solely on gameplay, my personal favorite is probably Peacewalker. Nice variety and open environments, although the final boss was really hard compared to the rest of the game. I also thought the story was pretty half baked, with nothing that really grabbed me like in 3 and 1.

So I haven't played 4 and who knows? Maybe it would be my favorite one. But I haven't played it.

PS3 games aren't really old, as they have graphics that still measure up today and controls that feel a lot better and more fluid. Obviously, the original Doom is an exception and still feels great.

Man, play MGS4, the games been around for almost a decade.

Plus, when was the last time you played a PS2 era MGS game?

Tekken 3

What they originally said

At the height of Sony's dominance in the late 90s, they could do no wrong. Tekken 3 was yet another addition to an already great console. Metacritic held a 96% positive rating and it earned near perfect reviews across the board. In an age when 2D fighting games were being looked down upon and polygonal characters was the way forward, Tekken would go on to define what it meant to be a 3D beat 'em up.

Does it hold up today?

I said it back when I was like 9 or 10 and I'll say it again, this is the greatest fighting game ever made. Period. Graphically it has aged poorly and the sound is a bit clunky but other than that, it still plays like a dream. Smooth is the word. Characters flow in and out of combinations as well as they did 20 years ago and the story/cut scenes are as fun now as they were back then.

The characters are still a weird mix of odd balls and that's just the way it should be. Each one has a back story and the design is still creative, especially when it comes to Yoshimitsu. There's a reason that it became one of the Playstations highest selling games, it was and is just that damn good.

Should I still play it?

Yes! If you have a copy, dust it off and plug it in.

@soul_starter: I don't have a PS4. I played MGS2 and 3 on the 360 with the HD collection

@turtlethetaffer ahh I got ya

Doom 3 was widely praised in "professional" review sites but drop down to the public forums, it was the complete opposite, it received a lot of hate, ridicule and flak. The ones who actually liked the game was a distinct minority as I remember. Understandably so because it departs from the Doom 1 and 2 pretty significantly. I loved Doom 3 then though and enjoyed it immensely but not sure if it holds up right now. I've always intended to go back to it but Steam backlogs and all make me feel all guilty inside when I try to replay old games.

@mirgamer I personally really enjoyed really enjoyed Doom 3. Still do now but it falters at time by comparison to modern shooters.

Doom and Doom 2 (not Doom 2016)

They has a historical place in gaming. That does not mean they hold up today. Its staging is just poor. The shootouts take place in simple hallway or mostly empty room. Rage follow the same staging ideal as Doom and Doom 2 and it had so many poor shooters. Then there maze element to it and it good that games have gotten rid of this worthless padding.

@wiouds I was actually surprised at how much I still enjoyed Doom (the original). Yes graphically and level design wise it might not be the best example but it's fluid movement, stream of enemies and simple yet intense gameplay is still fun as hell.