Games that you loved back in the day but will never ever play again

[anvi]

Good luck with BaK. That game has aged horribly.

Hey, speaking of heresy. Beat that less than 2 years ago, whilst never beating a game from '92 in my life. It's great.

I tried playing it a few years back, but the graphics are so pixelated that I literally couldn't even tell what I was looking at half the time. Maybe playing it on a smaller screen would help.

I have that problem too. I don't usually care about graphics in games, I play 80s games and the graphics don't even cross my mind. But Betrayal at Krondor stretched up to fit my 2560x1080 screen is quite the fugly.

I'm gonna play it again though anyway.

 

[Baterky]

prince of persia sands of time, i've tried it again last year....and just no. nope.

 

[Zibniyat]

Probably all of them.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Baldur's Gate series

 

[Ash]

action games have been anything but decline

Alright, Mr. broad tastes modern gaming is incline and I never replay games, which magical action games (read: first and third person shooter, hack and slash, platformer etc etc) have you been playing that are supposedly better and more refined than the golden oldies? Expose your broad taste in shit some more. Most people that say nonsense like this I heavily suspect never really played the older titles of the respective genre extensively.

Edit: never mind. You've shit taste, and you're entitled to your shit opinion. I'll leave you to it. But if you seriously think we're missing out on some good games, maybe you should share. I, for one, having been gaming for decades across a broad variety of beloved genres and slowly watched everything I love turn to absolute shit, with a number of rare exceptions of course. If you don't see it, well just carry on enabling and destroying. Most people are so whatever.

 

[Jasede]

It's hard to answer you without knowing what kind of action games you like. If you enjoy mechanical challenge with mature combat systems, I feel like the modern era has given us several excellent action games:
God Hand, Vanquish, Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 3, Ninja Gaiden (2004). While it is a much simpler game, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance also has some deeply satisfying boss fights and might perhaps be the only game I ever played where the QTEs (decline, I know) did not feel overly out of place.

I dislike that you make broad assumptions about me, considering I have been playing games since I could hold a controller and am 31 years old, which means I got to enjoy the entire golden age of DOS games. Sadly it does not sport many great action games; only Abuse comes to mind, now that I think about it. I also grew up with an Amiga which means I got to enjoy many games that I still consider fine examples of the craft; I am still waiting for a worthy sequel to Chaos Engine, for example.

Now it's your turn. Please explain to me how the titles I named are bad action games, or otherwise, tell me what sub-type of action game you wish examples for.


I feel like what is happening in your case is a kind of bitter cognitive dissonance. You are so entrenched in this view that even though many genres have indeed turned to utter crap (RTS, RPG, FPS to a large extent) other genres have been having a bit of a renaissance or at the very least still provided good titles in reasonable quantities. Sports games are excellent right now, as are racing simulations. Mechanical action games, as stated, are quite refined, and the SHMUP, in its bullet hell incarnation, is at the peak of game design in terms of enemy placement and difficulty to unfairness ratio (extremely difficult, completely fair)

Now if you say "well, I was only talking about RTS games, western RPGs, most 4X games and FPS games", well, then I can't overly fault you, but I do feel like you might be closed off to the possibilities other genres offer. Perhaps you could look into rogue-lites? They are making a wide variety of them, and many offer robust systems.

Perhaps you could look into some more independent games as well; Factorio and Rimworld offer interesting experiences and a wealth of options for you to explore, if you like building/managing.

I am not sure why I am bothering, really; I find arguing is pointless; people our age have their opinions so solidified that nothing short of life-changing events can change them.

 

[Ash]

It's hard to answer you without knowing what kind of action games you like. If you enjoy mechanical challenge with mature combat systems, I feel like the modern era has given us several excellent action games:
God Hand, Vanquish, Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 3, Ninja Gaiden (2004)..

Now you're just playing dumb. Devil May Cry released in 2001. Nobody really considers this era decline, generally speaking. The decline industry-wide happened simultaneously as it did for RPGs, unless you were utterly sheltered. Mid to late 2000s. Not a single average action game (or RPG) in sight in that time, let alone a good one, with some very rare exceptions. Unless you're secretly a fan of Oblivion or Bioshock, which are not-ARPGs.

What's your basis for considering a game "modern", because it's 3D? I doubt anyone considers Doom "modern". Considering games from 2001 modern is a strange phenomenon. When someone refers to the modern era, why would it not entail the era where the video game industry started to smash Hollywood and all other forms of electronic entertainment with the likes of Call of Duty? Where everything started to look realistic graphically and the dominance of cinematic design. Where shady business practices were ramped up to 11. Where the style and focus of pretty much every genre shifted and developers soldout en masse? The death of many beloved long-standing game series, or the rise of them in ultra-commercialised form. And so on.
There is pre-decline spanning the early 2000s and before (old school principles) and post-decline (modern, as detailed above), everything else is irrelevant. There was such a shift in all things videogaming, almost none of it good. That style of design, all bullshit business practices etc is still contemporary now, hence still modern. Although I probably have to state once again that things are slowly looking up in the past few years.

I feel like what is happening in your case is a kind of bitter cognitive dissonance. You are so entrenched in this view that even though many genres have indeed turned to utter crap (RTS, RPG, FPS to a large extent) other genres have been having a bit of a renaissance or at the very least still provided good titles in reasonable quantities.

Ah, so we've gone from "the decline is exclusive to RPGs" to now include shooters and RTS. Progress, at least.

Sports games are excellent right now, as are racing simulations. Mechanical action games, as stated, are quite refined, and the SHMUP, in its bullet hell incarnation, is at the peak of game design in terms of enemy placement and difficulty to unfairness ratio (extremely difficult, completely fair)

SHMUP? As in on-rails blasting? Yeah, this was never really a great genre. It's be like Pacman clones still living on as its own genre today. Fun? Good? Enjoyable? Sure, but never a genre brimming with potential like RPGs.
Racing simulations? More simulations than games. Ultra-realism faggotry. Of course they're doing well.
Sports games, well arcade racers have declined, and if Rocket League is any indication there's still some strong decline in sports. Overall I'm not big on the genre, yet I'd agree it's not something that has seen as much decline as other genres and there's perfectly logical explanations for it, such as it being a genre heavily based in realism and pre-defined well established game rules that absolutely everyone understands (e.g football).
Action games are/were pure shit in the dark ages of the Xbawks 360 era. Now they're slightly better but still decline. Again, with some exceptions.

It's hard to answer you without knowing what kind of action games you like.

I either really like or just enjoy enough to occasionally dabble with nearly every genre and their respective subgenres.
I mostly only exclude MMO, JRPGs with overbearing art styles (so 70% of them), walking sims and games that aren't really games. Note: classic adventure games are typically still games just about, as they included puzzles and investigative gameplay.
I may have just bashed SHMUPs for instance, but I played one just the other day.

 

[anvi]

If you like hacky slashy dumbass action games you are a bad person, imho.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

If you like hacky slashy dumbass action games you are a bad person, imho.

Go on. Say it. Just remember that you're on the RPG Codex, there are dozens of posters ready and willing to state that Legend of Grimrock = hacky slashy dumbass action game.

But in full seriousness, let's challenge you with this one:

Only the ignorant or terminally stupid hate on Golden Axe.

 

[Jasede]

No you moron, it requires reflexes. Me, with my high intelligence, I only play sophisticated, intelligent games befitting my superior mental power, such as Battle Isle.

 

[wyes gull]

Only the ignorant or terminally stupid hate on Golden Axe.

What Jigawatt suggested early in the thread applies to Golden Axe in the worst way. 2 has none of the significance of 1 but fixes so much in the controls and dependability of the moveset that it renders 1 nearly unplayable. And true, it might be missing Wilderness or Turtle Village but it's not like it doesn't have a couple of decent tunes of its own.

 

[anvi]

Legend of Grimrock is kinda sorta a hacky slashy dumbass action game, but the Magic of Grimrock mod makes it awesome. Golden Axe was fun as a kid, but all kids are bad people so it all checks out.

 

[Ash]

Action = anything real time with heavy action involving motor skills. So shooters (including a game you like, System Shock 1), ARPGs, hack and slash, platformers and so on. Probably the most heavily declined style of game in the modern era. Old ones though? Good shit.

Also Streets of Rage > Golden Axe.

 

[buru5]

Action = anything real time with heavy action involving motor skills. So shooters (including a game you like, System Shock 1), ARPGs, hack and slash, platformers and so on. Probably the most heavily declined style of game in the modern era. Old ones though? Good shit.

Also Streets of Rage > Golden Axe.

Mr. Ash "Everything New is Bad Because I Say So" Faggot

I'm surprised you aren't tired of getting schooled yet.

 

[Ash]

Except that is never my stance. I like a bunch of modern games, and furthermore I do not get schooled by some kid with zero understanding of game design and zero reading comprehension. Nor a furry faggot with zero taste for that matter...hey, it's a goddamn furry, that alone implies zero taste.

You're lucky you're among company. Of late more and more popamole faggots have flooded the Codex swooning over their Uncharted, GTAV etc decline shit.
I've been playing those types of games since the beginning, when they were generally better, and actually know what the fuck I am talking about.

I probably like notably more modern games than what the old cuckdex on average liked. Check the meaning of the term "Popamole", which originated here:

Popamole
Console shit, banal shit boring ect. Mostly any game made after 2000.

I like a handful of games made after 2000 (especially in years 2001-2005, where things were still going OK except in the case of FPS), and also like (good, typically pre-decline) console games nearly as much as PC games. Heck, even my avatar is from a modern game. But hey, you lack reading comprehension and I bashed some popamole you like so you'll probably cover your eyes and carry on as normal.

 

[Bigg Boss]

tank controls of Silent Hill games.

It's only the first game that forces you to tank controls though. There's option for alternative controls since second part.

Even the first game has an alternate control option, but for some unfathomable reason it's hidden behind the Extra Options menu which is accessed by holding down the shoulder buttons while in the regular menu. I only found out about this when I had almost finished the game .

Wow. I did not know that. Tank controls were never a big deal for me, but that is nice to know.

 

[crakkie]

I wanted to replay Quarantine, but watching a let's play convinced me otherwise. That pinball shit when you got stuck between 3 vehicles in an intersection used to drive me nuts, of which youtubers helpfully reminded me. That and the timed, plot-critical fares.

A remake would be nice, but it would probably end up as good as the Carmageddon remake.

 

[Dev_Anj]

and furthermore I do not get schooled by some kid with zero understanding of game design and zero reading comprehension.

Unlike you, who has such amazing grasp on game design that he equates Resident Evil to System Shock, thinks the Assassin's Creed games are platformers, assumes that a game becomes better by having more complexity and has meltdowns over such trivial things as grid based inventories having a sort button. Yeah, right.

Also, nice way to move goalposts to redefine the "modern period" as "period I personally don't like".

 

[commie]

Probably a whole gamut of early sims like Gunship(1980's version), Red Baron, M1 Tank Platoon, F-19, SWOTL etc. They really aged graphically and systemwise to such an extent that they really aren't playable except for nostalgia. I'm no graphics whore, but since those times the actual fidelity of flight systems and graphical representation came on in leaps and bounds. Sims benefited the most from 3D acceleration and increase in CPU processing power with the result that mid 90's to early 00's sims were the highpoint of the genre which did the overall package better than sims manage now(in terms of flight and combat mechanics modern sims can do better, but they tend to be drier and with barebones presentation. None of the slick EA/Jane's or Microprose presentation and campaigns). The result is that there's no point in playing these when even in the mid-90's, their successors did an exponentially better job, though at the time of release I played them to death!

I would also add a lot of early SSI wargames like Wars of Napoleon, Wargame Construction Set. and so forth that were fantastic fun back then but I couldn't see myself playing them again due to horrible interfaces and austere presentation. Like simulators, successors look and play better and have much better AI to bother with the early efforts again.

I suppose in the end this explanation comes down to this: if the game was succeeded by a much better effort in presenting effectively the same thing then there's no real reason to play the old version. These games aren't plot heavy adventures or RPG's with different maps, mechanics etc. and so there's no compelling reason to struggle with them like you might with an old adventure or RPG because it presents a unique experience of a sort.

 

[Daemongar]

The first game that popped into my head was Populous II - Look, I played the ever-loving shit out that game, but when I get to level 500 or so it gets brutal. Gods casting Volcano on you or whatever. Still love Bullfrog and all the games they produced, and I actually finished "The Deeper Dungeons" and made a dent in "American Revolution" so I can take what Bullfrog can give. Just had to say Uncle with 500 or so more levels of Populous II.

 

[Multidirectional]

tank controls of Silent Hill games.

It's only the first game that forces you to tank controls though. There's option for alternative controls since second part.

Even the first game has an alternate control option, but for some unfathomable reason it's hidden behind the Extra Options menu which is accessed by holding down the shoulder buttons while in the regular menu. I only found out about this when I had almost finished the game .

Wow. I did not know that. Tank controls were never a big deal for me, but that is nice to know.

I've just tried it out, none of the Extra Options disable tank controls. Gentle Player got me excited for no reason.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

When it comes to my favourite genres (RPG and Strategy), I can't really think of a game I liked then but don't like now. Probably because I was already in my mid twenties when I played them, so my tastes are pretty much the same.

But then there are adventure games. I really liked those long ago, in a galaxy far, far away... but now, definitely not so much. I can't picture myself playing a King's Quest or Space Quest game today.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

FNV, unless someone remakes it in a less torturous engine.

What's so torturous about it?

 

[Gentle Player]

tank controls of Silent Hill games.

It's only the first game that forces you to tank controls though. There's option for alternative controls since second part.

Even the first game has an alternate control option, but for some unfathomable reason it's hidden behind the Extra Options menu which is accessed by holding down the shoulder buttons while in the regular menu. I only found out about this when I had almost finished the game .

Wow. I did not know that. Tank controls were never a big deal for me, but that is nice to know.

I've just tried it out, none of the Extra Options disable tank controls. Gentle Player got me excited for no reason.

My mistake, it's been several years since I played it. It was Auto Aiming I was thinking of; I suppose turning that on at least makes the tank controls something less of a burden, which explains why I got them mixed up.

 

[Siobhan]

people our age have their opinions so solidified that nothing short of life-changing events can change them.

Most depressing thing I read today. I'm a decent bit older than you, and still find myself rethinking my positions in the wake of in-depth debates. I admit there's certain hurdles I can't get around due to my calcified tastes --- 3D platformers are a lost cause, as are story- and/or dialog-heavy games, and scripted set pieces. But I can still recognize a solid argument as to why a certain game does those well/badly, and that kind of intersubjectivity is all it takes for a debate.

As for the actual thread topic: imho Time Commando is the prototypical example of a game that was gorgeous back in the day and offered mindless arcade-style fun, but is nigh unplayable nowadays. The mixture of blurry prerendered backgrounds with low-res, badly animated 3D characters on top is jarring and completely devoid of any charm, and so are the pre-rendered cutscenes; the changing camera angles are a nightmare; the controls are wonky; and the game is painfully repetitive despite the varied settings (pre-historic, Rome, Japan, medieval, western, future). I still consider it mandatory playing for everybody, though, just to see how far 3D games have come in the last 20 years.