Fair, but ET was such an awful debacle that it killed Atari as a company and paved the way for Japanese companies to take over the entire market for the next couple of decades.

Now it’s just business as usual.

Tunic is great! The dev said he wanted to replicate the experience of playing a game in a different language that you don’t quite understand at first, and he made it perfectly. English is my second language, and it reminded me of the times trying to play games before I understood it, struggling with manuals and dictionaries.

The special edition comes with a physical manual, but ironically the player shouldn’t open it until they 100% the game. It’s like a spoiler.

deleted by creator

THANK you. Fuck the upvotes, that person is objectively wrong. Maybe they just didn’t play that many games during the early PC/console era?

That’s the exception rather than the rule. If you have the opportunity to make some changes in a new batch, why not take it?

Generally, when the game was released, it had to be done. If there were any major bugs, then people would be returning their copies and probably not buying an updated release. It’d also hurt the reputation of the developer, the publisher, and even the console’s company if it was too prevalent of a problem.

I don’t think anybody I knew ever got an update to a console game without just happening to buy v1.2 or something. There were updated rereleases, but aside from PC gaming, I don’t think most console gamers back then ever thought “I hope they fix this bug with an update”.

Competitive NES Tetris exemplifies this. The game was already retro when most current top players were fetuses, which completely eliminates nostalgia as a possible factor.

Agreed. Although that’s not what anyone actually says. Just read the comments in this thread. You would think they rdr2 was completely unplayable shit hole of micro transactions.

But what about rdr2 to link to the past? Removing the “considering the era” part of the equation, just 1 to 1.

I also think there’s a genuine drop in satisfaction when people are presented with more options. I limit myself and only buy new-ish games when I feel like I’ve extracted as much enjoyment out of the last one I bought as I can. I think this helps a lot.

Because what I see a lot of people doing is jumping to the game-of-the-week and then getting numb and saying “there’s no good games” even as they continue to buy new ones every week.

It’s available on Steam, as well as the Zero series of games.

I just recently bought “Populous” on steam for 2$.

It’s funny because I was explicitly thinking of populous at some point when thinking about replayability. What a great game. Although I played it on SNES. Countless hours on that game. Almost as bad as Tetris.

Just curious which games you are playing and if they are on servers. That being said, I’ve had a ton of fun playing battlebit.

People have become used to better graphics and smoother gameplay. You can’t go back after that. People like having other people to play with too.

This is what it ultimately comes down to for me: the games are better, and they can’t go back. If the games from back then were actually better, then people would be playing them all the time. But the reality is that people seem to pull more enjoyment from modern games, which is why they keep going back to them despite the constant “they suck!” complaints.

Despite all the crap you get with old games, you can tell that so many of them were made to be as much fun as possible. Like, that was the main aim and not “engagement at all costs, even enjoyment.” They were labours of love, warts and all.

And I feel that’s true now, like with the games I mentioned (BG3 and Anno 1800). And back then there were definitely cash grabs, like ET jumps to mind as the most famous example, but almost every NES game that was based on some kind of movie or other pop culture thing. It’s just they are better at grabbing cash now. But there are also plenty of modern games that don’t implement these addictive features, in order to keep siphoning money off of you, they are just fun and people play them infinitely more than going back to the olden days.

And, again, I don’t want people to get me wrong. I definitely agree that there is a lot of shit, especially dirty shit, where they abuse human psychology to keep people playing and siphoning off money. But I feel like it’s ridiculously overstated and people are also ridiculously blind to how much better gaming is now than it was “back in the good old days.”

Games “back in the day” weren’t made with algorithms designed to mess with your psychology to keep you playing, even if you hate the game. They didn’t design the games into evergrinds that only a few sweaty types and professionals can genuinely enjoy either. Old games had a logical, satisfying end where you would put them down afterwards.

Well, many old games were. Arcade games specifically were often designed to get coins from players, with extreme difficulty encouraging grinds and sweaty playthroughs to achieve mastery.

If anything, multiplayer and GaaS brought us back there.

Many new games, especially single player games, are still designed with “fun” in mind, or with even loftier goals and themes, many without exploitative gameplay loops, yet still with distinct, pleasing graphics, art styles, and polished gameplay.

I somewhat disagree about being “unable to go back”, but I will say it’s sheerly the style of game itself.

Take a game like A Link to the Past. Now look at a game like Retro City Rampage. Despite some 30+ years difference, they are visually nearly identical. Or any of the 2D Sonic games, them being 30 years apart is effectively meaningless.

But yeah, trying to play old Tomb Raider? If you’re expecting even PS3 graphics, boy are you in for a surprise.

However I think there is also an annoying amount of push for “better graphics or bust”. That was the main debate for the console wars, the Wii sucked because its graphics weren’t good and it’s a baby console, Gears of War and Lost Planet for the XBox are the pinnacle of gaming!1! What! No the God of Wa- sorry I got caught in a flashback.

But there are plenty of games you can emulate that can be upscaled and remove the archaic visuals, then it’s just the game design and control scheme. Red Dead Revolver looks and plays great, there’s no reason for anyone to stop playing outside of it just being a little less “AAA”. Similarly, pretty much any of the PS2 exploration games - Jak and Daxter, Spyro, Sly, Ty, Crash - hold up wonderfully today. They’re a bit slower, but they are the foundation that modern games of that genre use.

I don’t think them being slower, clunkier, less “AAA” makes them bad games. I think it makes them older games, and that is not inherently bad. In fact, I would argue that it’s gamers being bad at them, and that games today in many ways are easier to keep people engaged. The D&D arcade game is great, difficult, and would be absolutely dunked on by gamers today for all of its awkward gameplay.

This reminds me of an article I read about “Blade Runner, and old movies in general, are harder to watch because contemporary audiences have gotten used to movies that are faster, which makes them better.” The whole article was effectively trying to state that because new movies have shaped audiences, old movies are becoming unwatchable. In some respects, I’m sure there’s merit to that. In many other respects, I completely disagree. Just because something is in a different language does not remove its value. I see that as a reflection of the viewer, not a reflection of the art.

With that in mind, old video games are a different language. We have to play them with the mindset that things will not be familiar. That does not make them bad, it makes them something to learn, and it’s going to force you to learn things that are uncomfortable because it’s unfamiliar to what you would rather be doing. Old movies are a different language.

Just because you may not understand it does not mean it is worse. Likewise, just because you are familiar with modern games doesn’t make them better either. And finally, better is subjective for the most part anyway. (None of this is directed at you btw, lol not at all trying to say that you don’t understand things!)

A lot of times people use the word 'better 'when instead they should be using the word ‘prefer’.

How on earth could you conclude from my post anything about my gaming skill?

Its the same with film and anime ,probably also aplies to comics and books Everyone remembers a few good titles from the ‘old times’ ( and the old times depend on the person complaining ) and comapres it to every modern production convieniently forgeting about the garbage and medicore stuff that was put at that time.

And then there is the case of some genres falling put of favor. Whetewer we are talking about western in film or RTS in computer games . That actually is pretty reasonable complain since the way it usualy goes we have a massive oversupply of certain genres followed by a drought because as it turns out there is a limit to how much harem school anime horny teenagers and middle aged corporate workers will watch per year.

World Games was so good they made a spoof sequel of sorts called caveman games. A lot of people remember world games, it was a well received game. You had so many actually forgettable garbage games to choose from…

I’m unfamiliar with that game. Was World Games buggy or just bad? The quality the OP referred to was bugs, not gameplay.

Even the worst AAA game today has better game play than anything from 30 years ago. It’s the nature of extreme complexity that allowing players freedom makes complete debugging impossible.

They weren’t as buggy. People making excuses classify exploits as bugs ignoring that modern games have more bugs and exploits.

I played Atari 2600 games like space invaders, adventure, and pitfall for thousands of hours without ever running into a bug. The only game with an exploit was Combat where you could put your tank muzzle into a corner and make it loop across the map. But both players could do it.

some games would be unplayable without hand-patching the code that you’d find in a magazine.

I think it’s because people only remember the good games and not the stinkers.

I played a lot of shit games I can’t recall because I played for 30 minutes max. There was one game I never passed the first level as I couldn’t figure out what to do, I think something to do with jelly beans and a blob. How is that good gameplay lol?

But of course myself and others can tell you about the games we played for hours like Super Mario Bros which didn’t really have bugs and were good.

I miss open server browsers. I had a few servers I would frequent for UT2k4. It was nice just bouncing in for a few rounds. People were there to win, but between teams being shuffled between games and no real ranking system, no one was really a tryhard.

Yeah I always get pushed back on that, but honestly, I’ll “die on that hill”. Also, speaking of games not just in the 2000s, but even earlier.

Back then corporations had to sell cartridges and ship them, and if they shipped with any bugs, that was the death of the game.

At the end of the day, usually when I’m debating this topic with someone, they can only point to a few examples of bugs in cartridge games or in PC games back then, which was a very small ratio to all the ones that shipped correctly.

My point is basically the ratio of good games to buggy games was a lot better back in the day than it is today, because developers are time-pressed and semi-lazy, and they just figured they could fix bugs in post-production.

And funny enough, the pushback I usually get seems to be from astroturfers trying to hide that fact, of not doing as much due diligence before shipping, because it could just be fixed after the fact, regardless if the customer gets a worse product at first or not (not saying that of you, just generally).

There were some pretty bad bargain bin releases, and a lot of games had glitches but I can’t remember any game from a big company that released with a critical bug. I do think today companies are much more blasé about releasing games with serious issues and patching it later.

And you had to scour forums with dubious links to find official or unofficial patches.

Games back then were pricier - once you account for inflation.

This has always been a weird argument to me. Did wages go up to match inflation? If not, they’re not actually getting any cheaper.

Games back then were pricier - once you account for inflation.

That’s commonly said but ignores other economic factors such as income, unspent money, and cost-of-living.

Though lots of things are better now: the entire back-catalogue of games, more access to review/forums, free games (and also ability to create your own games without doing so from nothing) etc. Aside from when video store rental was applicable, early gaming was more take-what-you-can-get (niche hardware/platforms might still have that feel somewhat).

That only happened extremely rarely. Nowadays it seems to be almost mandatory, precisely because the mindset is that they can just fix it later

That happened like, 6 times.

I can literally only think of a handful of games that had serious bugs.

There was that ninja turtles game for nes with the impossible jump, there was enter the matrix for PS2/xbox that was completely not done. There were a few games that were poorly conceived in the first place like ET for Atari…

But yeah, what else had serious bugs?

Well the new Tekken games launch with more and more characters, besides 7 which did launch with less than 6, and if you consider that the price of games has gotten cheaper due to inflation since the first Tekken it starts to make sense that they’re trying to make more money off them. Games have been costing more to make while costing less to buy for decades now and the industry is reaching a point where that’s become unsustainable but people just won’t accept a larger sticker price and longer development cycles so studios are finding new ways to make money. Personally I think selling characters as they come out for a few bucks is actually not a bad thing in fighting games, it keeps the games alive and interesting for much longer so long as it’s done well.

Ahh, the maps were so good. I remember using the extremely detailed hand drawn map to help me locate the Cavern of the Incarnate, and other cool locations. I am sad that I didn’t keep them.

I have a feeling their comment was tongue in cheek. I absolutely agree too, for while I do think there is some merit in artificial difficulty and creativity within set restrictions, I also enjoy games much more when I emulate them and have save states.

I think a great example that bridges the gap between more modern-style hardware and daily living, and old difficult repeatable gameplay is the era of the Gameboy Color. So many of the games for these style of consoles were meant to be played in bursts (arcades, anyone?) due to the on-the-go nature, and since that fit so in line with the already existing mechanisms gaming had – artificial difficulties by design – there is a very streamlined progression from 1980’s games and early 2000’s games.

So, what changed? Well let me tell you, it wasn’t the Blackberry.

Honestly, the iPhone. As mobile game consoles like the Nintendo DS got better, games got more fully fledged like the home console games were. Developers were recreating game experiences like Spyro, putting in huge games in tiny mobile consoles (Toon Link, anyone?). Yes, the Nintendo DS still had its shovelware but the iPhone was the new bridge that gapped the old arcade style pay-to-play. Games with artificial difficulty now had micro-transactions allowing you to bypass the designed limitations. As mobile consoles got better games, mobile gaming got far, far worse, leading us to “”““random””“” RNG -gacha and lootboxes and all the great gambling starters.

That’s only further developed for offshoots of software. Just look at all the junk between the: FOSS stores, Apple Store, Play Store, Samsung Store, Meta-Quest Store, going even further some devices have their own separate store entirely. And now these stores ship updates, so you don’t even have to finish your game before selling it!

Ironically, Nintendo paved the way for a really great opportunity, then capitalists saw the opportunity to exploit the free market and now there is literal garbage everywhere.

Actually there is a company called limited run games I think that goes all out and prints physical copies of some indie games with instructions and bonus stuff. It’s pretty awesome but takes a while to get it.

These days I’m driving on the way home.

I think that’s a fair point.

A lot of my favorite games are indie titles or from small dev teams.