How come games like Fallout 1, Boulders Gate, and Deus Ex aged like shit and are no longer fun to play while games like OOT and Super Mario 64 are hella fun and still enjoyable to this day?
>oot and mario 64
Glad you have fun with them, they mark milestones in console gaming, and we're very well designed, but I don't see how from a gameplay perspective you can have that much fun with them.
In my opinion, it's not the games that "didn't age well", but rather that the controls have become somewhat dated.
In Ocarina of Time, the controls are mostly the same as what you would find on a modern game, and are intuitive for the most part.
For games like Fallout though, the controls are much different and can feel clunky as a result.
One other problem Fallout has, is that it's rules are more similar to a tabletop game than a video game, which means reading the manual is almost required to get a good understanding of whats going on and how to play.
However, once you read the manual and adjust to the controls, the game becomes much more fun and enjoyable
Anyways, thats been my experience.
Buddy, I'm not saying these are the absolute best threads ever, but they do post something interesting every once and a while.
The main problem these threads have is the fact that they're opinion based, and people like you like to shitpost in them.
How come games like OOT and Super Mario 64 aged like shit and are no longer fun to play while games like Fallout 1, Boulders Gate, and Deus Ex are hella fun and still enjoyable to this day?
I don't know, OP. Justify your own opinions.
You named PC games as the ones that aged like dog shit. Well there you have it, brother.
PC games in general are VERY fad driven. To this day, in fact.
They follow whatever "standards" are currently around, and just try to be prettier, longer, and at various points in history, they focused on lame ass gimmick gameplay mechanics (like gravity guns)
The developers of said games are also used to working on a platform with barely any limitations. So if they think of something, they just do it. Consoles have always been different. PSX games that came out in 1999 (for example) were designed to run on hardware that was 6 years old at that time, and with no upgrades and alterations able to be made to said hardware. And yet, they looked WORLDS better than gen 1 PSX games. Far better gameplay too, It was because devs had to get creative to pull that kind of power and optimization out of the thing. While PC devs just shat out generic garbage like nobody's business for untold years. Always on hardware with ever increasing specs. Never once forcing them to think outside the box, or go a non-standard route to do anything.
Basically, PC devs are trendy, spoiled little cuntbags, and always have been.
The only PC games that genuinely stand the test of time are things like Doom, that literally cemented an entire genre, and was basically elemental in it's execution. A game designed by people who clearly loved and were excited about what they were doing. But that kind of passion is rare these days.
I think all of those games "aged" fine since they are made up of inorganic compounds and would take a very long time to actually degrade. That is what you meant right OP?
Well said. I've always felt that PC games were a lot more generic than console games (although that's a harder claim to maintain today, because so many games either get simultaneously released on both or eventually ported to PC).
I mainly can't stand the dirt aesthetics and crummy gameplay, wretched combat of Crpgs. Tabletop faggotry is just the worst and it's good that the genre is more or less dead in video games.
We only need a mod to delete /v/ tier bait threads and ban retarded monkeys like the crt x lcd guy, the "metal slug is shit because 30 fps" guy, the "let's shit at every sega thread" guy, the "overrated games? I begin with MGS" guy and every kind of kid like that who try to put their jokes in more than one thread.
Er, if anything, the mods could be a little less militant. I notice that threads about the prices of retro games keep getting deleted, even though that seems like a perfectly relevant topic for this board. Someone complained that a thread about game glitches got deleted, although I wasn't there to see it.
Anyway, back on topic. I wonder if some of the PC vs console divide is due to Japanese vs Western developers? Since most console classics are from Japanese developers and most PC classics are from Western developers.
I've always leaned towards Japanese developers because a lot of Western games feel, for lack of a more detailed explanation right now, generic to me (inb4 all anime is the same). There are some pretty good things happening in the modern Western indie scene though.
Remember, you had access to all western games, good and bad. You only had access to the mid-high/high tier Japanese games from big companies because no one's gunna localize all the generic trash that was churned out over there, too.
Its atmosphere is more enjoyable than the games you mentioned, I believe. I don't actually like several things about OOT (Dull overworld,
simplistic puzzles, among others) but I always end up going back to it because of how it feels.
That's a good point, but I've still played significantly more Japanese games I liked than Western games. Surely you'd expect Western games to be even more impressive if I have greater access to them, no?
There actually are Western games I really like (Team Fortress 2 is in my top 5 games ever), but all of my examples are non-retro.
Because skill-based games (like platformers and other action games) are far more replayable than story-based games (like RPGs). Once you get the story in a story-based game, you're pretty much done with it, but with a skill-based game, you want to keep playing so you keep getting better at it.
I also agree. As tollish as >>2904084 is, there is very real truth to it. I've never played a PC game that felt as polished or unique as the better console games. All the biggest PC games are very engine driven, you can tells that the tech guys have created some generic system and tools and then the art guys have come in and made content for it. With a game like Zelda, you don't get that at all, instead everything about it feels tailored, unique and integrated, and there's nothing on the PC that offers the equivilent.
>There are skill intensive RPGs without action
>Muh twitch based action games
One is muscle memory, the other is rule memorization, neither is inherently more difficult to acquire than the other otherwise we would all be chess masters or professional gamblers.
Not him but surely the problem with saying one is more difficult is really with the definition of the word "difficult". You cannot seriously claim that all things that require skill are equal or "we'd all be professional" in them.
eh, I dunno, I think it's really subjective and based on how much you actually know about the game in question.
for example, until I played thief gold, I couldn't "feel the engine" in system shock 2, because I had no reference as to what the specific traits of the engine were.
conversely, after getting into glitching and rom hacking, I can definitely "feel the engine" in the 64 zeldas and Mario 64. the collision detection, the level architecture, the scene-room way things are designed...you can definitely tell one is using a modified version of the prior engine.
also, rareshit collectathons are all the same, be it with bird and bear, monkeys or an alcoholic squirrel.
>go back to SM64 or OOT
>blisterly fast 17-20fps
because games used to be treated with love and care. games were made not for graphics, but for story and gameplay. now everything is an interactive movie.
games were made by gamers, for gamers. but now they're made by fucking suits.
he's not saying modern games are shit and old games are good. he's saying old PC games are shit and old console games are good.
I.e. games from the same "for gamers by gamers" era are shit just because of platform.