Which games do you think aged poorly?

Right now I wouldn't touch anything that was developed at and before the first half of the 360/PS3 era.

I think that's still debatable. Because I can think of MUCH worse, like...

Soul Blade (Precursor to SoulCalibur; really hard to go back to after SoulCalibur II and onward)

Tekken 1 and 2 (3 still holds up as it's gameplay still feels right in it's day and age)

Star Wars Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight (odd because Dark Forces I holds up fine, as do Jedi Outcast and Academy)

Sid Meier's Civilization I (II and onward are still fine)

Star Fox classic (there was a reason Star Fox II got slammed, and Nintendo was right to can that game initially)

Tomb Raider PSOne (After Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time showed us how 3D games on consoles should be controlled, tank controls for an action platformer just don't feel right)

Street Fighter EX series (holy moon physics Batman!)

@Mozelleple112:

But Macutchi is right. Your reason for suddenly taking Mass Effect 2 over Red Dead Redemption 1 makes absolutely zero sense. Suddenly RDR 2 completely replaces RDR 1? WTF? We're not talking about NBA here. Every GTA and RDR game covers a completely different storyline with different characters. That alone makes it impossible for the latter to replace the older game.

Sure, GTA 5 plays better than 4 but it doesn't have the story of Niko Bellic and you have to play GTA 4 to see it. By your logic, Mass Effect Andromeda SHOULD completely replace ME 1,2 and 3 because the gameplay is a lot better. As with RDR 2, RDR 1 actually completes the storyline. RDR 2's entire existence relies on the player's memories of RDR 1. Anyone who got RDR 2 beforehand would have to play RDR 1 to see the rest of the story. And you say: "Screw that. Read a story recap." Why??? What's so outdated about RDR1 that you feel is apparently sooooo unplayable for today's standards?

This.

No it isn't. You people were stupid kids when you played these old games, and loved plenty of bad things as children until you grew up to appreciate better stuff. More so, much like how modern games media over sells flash over substance, the older generations also over sold flash over substance.

Whether or not the developers were aware of how to solve a problem, doesn't change the fact that those games specifically had problems. Shallow gameplay is still going to be shallow gameplay, and 3D games did not exactly come out in an era where there weren't examples of great gameplay.

Too much credit is given to a novelty, and not enough scrutiny is given to its systems. That isn't new to gaming discourse, that has always been a problem with gaming discourse.

Doom

Stalker

Metro

Prey

Max Payne

Mafia

SF2 is a much better game than a lot of SF games that came after it. Busted tho it maybe, it doesn't have an obvious comeback mechanic, its gameplay isn't nearly as turtley at high level the way SF4 is, its combos n mixups aren't nearly as ridiculous and free as SFV's crush counter into v-trigger meme gameplay is.

Bad take.

Hardly, there are still 2D Platformers that don't feel as good as Mario Bros jump, and given the short nature of the game and all the short cuts its still a fun game to speed run as a result as well. It's outclassed, but still an enjoyable game to this day.

Don't even know how anyone knocks Mario 64 of all things. Odyssey n Sunshine might have better overall mechanics because they only add to Mario's movesets, but both suffer from way too much putzing around. 64 on the other hand has that tricked out moveset and actually has you platforming and doing all sorts of challenges.

Again on top of having a bitchin speed run community, it's one of the most expressive platformers ever made. And allows you to have inventive solutions to levels that you really can't have in the Galaxy games (where mechanically the games are hella nerfed) and 3D World n Land, where........calling it mechanically nerfed, would be kind.

As far as depth is concerned and actually making good on it, No 3D mario game stacks up favorably to Mario 64. The camera sucks? Yeah, sure it has issues. the bosses are universally bad. But those are blemishes, in comparison to a much stronger core game. If the Galaxy games are better (and I do personally prefer 2), it's not because it improves on what Mario 64 did. It does something completely different from that game.

And people would still be justified in calling out the metroid titles pre Super Metroid as not particularly good. Trash games have plenty of influence, it is a foolish standpoint to assume bad games can not be influential. We already have plenty of examples in gaming about games that are bad that are important to the history of the medium. Kill.Switch is one of the most important shooters of the 00s.

Kamiya can sight inspirations all he wants, it still wouldn't change that the melee combat systems that came before in 3d games before Onimusha and Devil May Cry 1, were straight up bad. They were devoid of any compelling decision making even then.

If you were fond of melee combat at the time, you were still being better served by 2D games, because at least micropositioning presented a tangible threat and more satisfying gameplay loop.

This is a fallacy. People being ignorant of thing, does not mean said thing isn't poor or guilty of whatever. The only part worth discussing is what is the end result. End result was still a lot of badly playing video games.

There has to be a more tangible reason that some old games hold up, and others don't. Because it isn't exclusively about what came after. Plenty of FPS games came after Doom, none of them could hold Doom's jock in terms of balance between great level design and a quality roster of enemies that all challenge space in interesting ways. And the FPS is as explored a genre as you can get.

Plenty of FPS games have come after Quake, not one in the last 2 decades could stack up favorably to Quake 3 Arena's mechanical depth, much less what CPMA offers. And Quake had no shortage of competitors in the arena shooter space, especially from the likes of Unreal and Tribes.

Nope. Adults enjoyed plenty of old "trash" games back then as well. It has nothing to do with age. What made those old "trash" games enjoyable at the time was the innovative gameplay.

Innovative gameplay is innovative gameplay, whether it's deep or shallow. That's what enables deep gameplay to exist in the first place, by building on previous gameplay innovations and adding more depth to them. If game developers back then focused solely on solid core gameplay and ignored gameplay innovation, then we'd still be playing Pong clones today.

Innovative gameplay is just as important as deep gameplay. Because the former provides the basis for the latter. Without the former, the latter would not be possible. If gamers always kept scrutinizing innovation instead of rewarding innovation, then developers wouldn't even bother innovating and, once again, we'd be stuck with Pong clones today.

SF2 is a much better game than a lot of SF games that came after it. Busted tho it maybe, it doesn't have an obvious comeback mechanic, its gameplay isn't nearly as turtley at high level the way SF4 is, its combos n mixups aren't nearly as ridiculous and free as SFV's crush counter into v-trigger meme gameplay is.

I've enjoyed every mainline SF sequel (including Alpha 1-3) more than SF2. For what it's worth, the first SF game I actually owned was SF Alpha (I had previously only played SF2 in arcades and at a mate's place). After playing the Alpha games, I remember trying to go back to SF2, and found it quite basic and limited in comparison. It just wasn't very enjoyable compared to the Alpha games.

Hardly, there are still 2D Platformers that don't feel as good as Mario Bros jump, and given the short nature of the game and all the short cuts its still a fun game to speed run as a result as well. It's outclassed, but still an enjoyable game to this day.

Don't even know how anyone knocks Mario 64 of all things. Odyssey n Sunshine might have better overall mechanics because they only add to Mario's movesets, but both suffer from way too much putzing around. 64 on the other hand has that tricked out moveset and actually has you platforming and doing all sorts of challenges.

Like I said, I didn't find SMB to be very enjoyable even back in the early '90s, after playing later platformers that improved on its gameplay. Sure, I can recognize that SMB has solid core gameplay. But that doesn't change my lack of enjoyment, as I just found it quite basic and limited compared to later platformers.

I loved Mario 64 when it first came out, when it was an innovative new experience. But after trying it again a couple years ago, I just found it quite bland and boring. Again, I can recognize that it has a solid core gameplay. I'm just saying I don't find it very enjoyable nowadays like I did back then.

And people would still be justified in calling out the metroid titles pre Super Metroid as not particularly good. Trash games have plenty of influence, it is a foolish standpoint to assume bad games can not be influential. We already have plenty of examples in gaming about games that are bad that are important to the history of the medium. Kill.Switch is one of the most important shooters of the 00s.

Kamiya can sight inspirations all he wants, it still wouldn't change that the melee combat systems that came before in 3d games before Onimusha and Devil May Cry 1, were straight up bad. They were devoid of any compelling decision making even then.

If you were fond of melee combat at the time, you were still being better served by 2D games, because at least micropositioning presented a tangible threat and more satisfying gameplay loop.

Yet plenty of "trash" games were still enjoyable for their time, because they offered innovative gameplay. What's "foolish" is anachronistic fallacies, judging the past based on modern standards (e.g. whig history). Historians judge the past based on the historical context of the time, not based on today's standards. As for Kill Switch, that was trashed even back when it first came out, because it didn't know what to do with its innovative cover system, until Gears of War later improved on it and implemented it in a better game.

It's not just about inspiration. Kamiya has cited so-called "trash" games as some of his favourite games of all time. Most notably of course, Hydlide. Which Hideo Kojima also cited as one of his favourite games (you can clearly see some Hydlide influence in the early Metal Gear games). What made Hydlide so enjoyable for Japanese gamers in the '80s was the innovative open-world action-RPG gameplay, which is something they had never experienced before. Is Hydlide a "trash" game today? Sure. But were Kamiya and Kojima (and other Japanese gamers in the '80s) somehow "misguided" for enjoying Hydlide at the time? Absolutely not.

Again, you're missing the point about innovative gameplay. I'm not sure if you still hold the view that Zelda Ocarina of Time has "bad" melee combat. But even if it does, so what? OOT's melee combat was still fun at the time. It wasn't because gamers back then were "misguided", but because OOT's combat was innovative. This is the first time anyone had seen a melee combat system with Z-targeting, which made it fun at the time. This paved the way for Onimusha and DMC, borrowing the Z-targeting combat from OOT and improving on it.

This is a fallacy. People being ignorant of thing, does not mean said thing isn't poor or guilty of whatever. The only part worth discussing is what is the end result. End result was still a lot of badly playing video games.

There has to be a more tangible reason that some old games hold up, and others don't. Because it isn't exclusively about what came after. Plenty of FPS games came after Doom, none of them could hold Doom's jock in terms of balance between great level design and a quality roster of enemies that all challenge space in interesting ways. And the FPS is as explored a genre as you can get.

The "fallacy" here is the anachronism of judging people of the past by modern standards and ignoring the historical context of their time. An approach to historiography that is rejected by historians in virtually every field of history... except gaming history (because very few people actually take that seriously). Referring to people in the past as "ignorant" or "blinded" because they didn't have what we have today is an example of such an anachronism.

With that said, I don't have any issue with you or Conan or TC judging older games by modern standards. What I do take issue with is the way in which you guys are attacking the gamers who enjoyed those games back then, and the nonsensical assumptions you guys are making about gamers back then somehow being "blinded" or "ignorant" or some nonsense like that. That completely misses the point of why gamers back then enjoyed those older games. Again, it goes back to innovative gameplay. A key ingredient that can even make even a "trash" game enjoyable for its time.

Some great choices here, but I have to call you out on one or two.

Tekken 1 and 2 have indeed aged but there is something of a charm to them, perhaps because we received sequels. I remember when I got 4 on PS2 and the package came with these. I could still play them with nostalgia goggles on.

Civ 1 would be absolutely playable to me right now, I was thinking of downloading it soon, it's a pity someone doesn't soup it up for today by just porting it and tidying it up. I'd say it was better than some of the earlier sim games, certainly.

Tomb Raider is probably right up there with Goldeneye. Star Fox 1, probably. But of the 3D games of that gen, it's aged one of the best, it's just, it hasn't aged well. But look at Stunt Car FX.

EX was never particularly a great game was it? I only know it from reviews, which weren't kind. No one wanted this game. Street Fighter is best on a 2D plane.

@DocSanchez:

I hate to say it but I agree. I absolutely loved this game at the time and have amazing memories playing it but yeah, awkward controls and camera and the graphics are hard to go back to nowadays.

I just think it's possibly the best example of something that was the absolute best in its day which is pretty much unplayable now. You can still play 2D games, like the original super mario for example, but GE was from an era where 3D fps games hadn't set on a good control scheme and 3D was early enough that most games from this era are way too ugly now.

@Jag85: Beautifully put.

@ConanTheStoner: Got to agree about Mortal Kombat. I was blown away by the "amazing photo-realistic" graphics and blood. Loved it way more than Street Fighter back in the day. Now, the gameplay is just a salad bowl full of garbage, and any game that used real actors looks like shit. I remember people being down on Deadly Alliance when it first came out, but that is the oldest Mortal Kombat worth playing.

I would say any 3D hack and slash that came before Devil May Cry has not aged well, and even the first Devil May Cry is a tough sell in a world where DMC3 exists. Same with any pre-Max Payne third person shooter, with the possible exception of MDK. I'll have to fire that up again sometime to see if it's still fun.

Fair enough on some choices. Honestly, for me, I still get a lot of fun out of Goldeneye, especially to take a look and see how FPS have evolved since then (hell, I played it recently to test my new TV for retro gaming), though I can see why people say it's aged badly.

I bring up Street Fighter EX because I've noticed it's got quite the fanbase and given Capcom and Arika have since gone separate ways (EX characters are now part of their own IP, so I guess the Street Fighter EX is a crossover like MvC, SNKvC, and TvsC now).

Although I did miss one more example, the ORIGINAL Metroid, and for that matter, Metroid II. There's a good reason those games got remade (Zero Mission and Samus Returns).

Hence why I also said the journos were rubbish back then too. They suddenly get bad taste, they always had it.

Innovation is innovation, but you can be innovative and highly influential, and not exactly be good or compelling. Pong example sucks, because there is an inherent lack of depth to Pong overall, no where did I say the medium should never evolve. The difference is how much value I put exclusively on evolving.

It should not be enough for a great title to just be influential, it should actually be good at the things it is attempting to do. Hence why a lot of innovative darlings, while important, are the games that tend to get dunked on overtime. Time exposes their weaknesses. Not new ones, but ones that were always there.

No. In terms of history sure, but "you did something new" doesn't mean shit to me, when the playing it part is wack. I'll appreciate the effort, but I'll end up being at "It'll be nice when someone actually does this thing well".

Hence I can appreciate the bad combat systems prior to Onimusha and DMC1, as important for beat em up games in 3D, but they still bad.

"i didn't like it as much as ting" isn't a counterpoint. SF2 still has qualities the rest of the series lacks. It's not close to my favorite Street Fighter game. Alpha 2, Third Strike are significantly better. But, as far as going a few rounds with someone in SF2, I'd still be down because the speed of that game, the sheer kill power, and its meta is still timeless.

Other games being better didn't stop SF2 turbo or its follow ups from being a good game. It's flaws got exposed over time (how random the stun is for instance), and that is worth pointing out when ranking the greatest fighting games of all time, that SF2 while being the most important game in the genre, is not in anyway close to even the best SF game or best game in the genre.

Because those are two different convos, but as far as still being a deep game, pls we get fighting games today that aren't as well thought out in their fighting engine as SF2.

Skipping any convo of "i don't like ting". Mario Bros also happens to be an innovator and important title to the genre, but it's never been your jam. My contesting argument is nah that game still has a better feeling jump than games today, its gameplay loop is as rock solid as it's ever been. It's still the base premise for an entire genre, for pretty logical reasons. And you can make reasonable arguments to why that one mechanic: the jump has as much depth as it does, given how simple it is as a mechanic.

Does Mario's importance make the original the best? or even great? Debatable. Again there were obvious short comings of that game that were expanded upon.

If the Knock on Mario 64 is that its visually bland, I'm not super into that convo, I can get over that stuff. But its tool kit is the furthest thing from Bland, the level of expression 64 allows is 2nd only to its direct successors (Sunshine and Odyssey), and neither of them consistently have platforming challenges to flex said expression.

Which is the point, were Conan n I just focusing on things we don't like it be one thing, but we aren't dunking on gameplay we feel we got better later. Often we're dunking on games where the gameplay straight up sucks.

I'm not judging a mechanic on any standard related to time. I'm judging most mechanics on what they do, and how much meaningful decision making it offers in a possibility space. It's why for all of The Last of Us's derivative gameplay, and it is derivative, even if all of its systems are done better elsehwere, I still come back to its gameplay systems themselves are good. Albeit could use more depth across the board.

Likewise, I don't dunk on Ocarina of Time for instance, because it's not DMC or Dark SOuls. I do however dunk on its combat because even relative to gameplay of that era, while it controls nicely, it's a shallow gameplay loop. Enemies can't pose a real tangible threat, they are mostly homogenized in their behavior, and replays only expose that. I get that it took time for the general public to get that hint about Zelda's memey designs, but that's a flaw that's always been there. It wasn't new.

I didn't say someone is "misguided" for liking what they like, by all means. But just because (I've never played Hydlide, so can't speak to it) something inspired them, wouldn't change the part the game was poor. If someone made something better based on a lesser work, by all means.

There are plenty of old gameplay concepts I want explored and figured out. Oni and Devil's Third's brand of combat/shooting is something I would love a good game to get. Astral Chain and V from DMC5 are very much giving me Chaos Legion vibes, that game sucks, but the idea is cool.

The error of your point is that we somehow ignored the influence and importance of these games, when that's not the case. But much like we don't care for the influence and importance of modern games CoD, fortnite, or what have you for their own additions to the space, long term has exposed those old games for "oh right, this was just a shiny concept".

Nah, it's like saying people weren't racist back then, because it wasn't a commonly accepted concept back then. They were clearly racist, whether or not that was frowned upon in society or even accepted as a concept or otherwise.

I'm basing the ignorance and blinded, much in the same way that it's like the ignorance and being blinded today. It is not a new habit that people are easily drawn to something shiny. It is a common one, gaming criticism is piss poor and has never taken its medium to task on a bunch of shit. It ignored flaws in games back then, it still ignores flaws in games today.

Much like they overrate games today, and will laud said games with insane praise, they did that back then. Yall just in denial of the fact that some of yalls childhood darlings, are every bit as shallow journo bait as the some of the stuff yah bitch about today.

No one here misunderstood the reason for the praise, again it's the value of that praise.

It is amazing how much better that old html error fest quoting system we had back then is better than the new shit. Stupid ass website.