When old games aren't as good as you remembered

[Winter_Wolf]

Well my nostalgia for the Bard's Tale series (original 80's) was recently dealt a mortal blow. After getting DOSBox up and running (and then getting a front-end so I don't have to fiddle with DOS commands), I played a few minutes with the Bard's Tale games. Back in the dawn of time, I was on an Apple IIc, and the graphics weren't great. The MS-DOS versions of BT2 and BT3 made me just go "No." and I stopped immediately because I thought my eyes would melt from the ugly. After looking at the Apple emulators, they seemed like entirely too much work for games which really were great in the stone age but have not aged well. I'm afraid to attempt Might and Magic (the first), though I'm sure M&M 4-5 (collectively World of Xeen) would be bearable.

Anyone else have stories about how their childhood nostalgia was struck down by trying to revisit those games?

*I just want to say I'm all for GOG.com and what they're trying to do, but the BT thing was a huge let down (and not through GOG in any case).

[Eldan]

A second-hand copy of SimCity 2000 was one of my very first games. I played it for ages because, well, it was the only game I had. Loved it, though.

Then, with the Sim City 5 discussion, I started thinking about it again, got it running on Dos Box and, well.

It's boring, really. I couldn't get into it again. Guess I don't have the patience my eight-year old (or so, I'm guessing) self had.

[warty goblin]

For me the killer, particularly with strategic sorts of games, is the interfaces. I can appreciate a lot of things about older designs - you will never convince me that citybuilding gets better than the Impressions games - but holy crap did the interfaces blow chunks back in the day. I found Fallout to be simply uplayably painful, probably because I didn't already know how its interface worked.

[Gamerlord]

There is a semi-old tycoon game based on Jurassic Park called "Operation Genesis" in which you managed one of the titular park. I distinctly recall loving it when I was younger, so you can probably imagine how happy I was when I discovered the disc inside a container full of old games I used to play. So, I install it, boot it up (It runs surprisingly well on Windows 7) and.....became bored within an hour of playing it. Mainly because buying even a handful of poorly-rated dinosaurs takes a huge chunk out of your money, and I couldn't find a fast forward button so I spent most of those sixty minutes watching my crappy one-star critters goof around in my crappy park that was basically one road, one restroom, one restaurant, and two exhibits (Maybe even one if the RNG decides to screw you over at the start of the game) because I couldn't afford anything else and making a profit took a while. Tried the scripted missions, but got bored into the third one ( For some reason I could never get past the second one when I was younger.) Maybe I'm just not as into dinosaurs as I used to be.

Also found Sim Theme Park (AKA Theme Park World) in the same container, and while it is still fairly enjoyable, it isn't quite the perfection of tycoon gaming I recall it being when I was younger. It's also a real pain to get working in Windows 7.

[MLai]

There is a semi-old tycoon game based on Jurassic Park called "Operation Genesis" in which you managed one of the titular park...... Maybe I'm just not as into dinosaurs as I used to be...
That gives me the idea... that somebody should make a Jurassic Park simulator with modernized graphics. It would be like managing a "Jurassic" Park, except everything looks like one of the better mockumentaries from Discovery Channel (or Nature, or whichever network did all those CG dinosaur shows). I'd buy that.

[warty goblin]

That gives me the idea... that somebody should make a Jurassic Park simulator with modernized graphics. It would be like managing a "Jurassic" Park, except everything looks like one of the better mockumentaries from Discovery Channel (or Nature, or whichever network did all those CG dinosaur shows). I'd buy that.

When it comes to dinosaur games, I've always had one very simple desire: Sim T-Rex.

I never will understand the appeal of the seemingly endless tide of mediocre multiplayer FPS games about shooting dinosaurs. Once you've hit forty foot long carnivore, adding guns only makes it less awesome.

[The Glyphstone]

When it comes to dinosaur games, I've always had one very simple desire: Sim T-Rex.

I never will understand the appeal of the seemingly endless tide of mediocre multiplayer FPS games about shooting dinosaurs. Once you've hit forty foot long carnivore, adding guns only makes it less awesome.

That depends on where the guns are. Guns pointed at 40-foot carnivore? Less badass. Guns mounted on a 40-foot carnivore? Extra badass.

[Mando Knight]

That depends on where the guns are. Guns pointed at 40-foot carnivore? Less badass. Guns mounted on a 40-foot carnivore? Extra badass.

40-foot carnivore with robot machine gun arms and aviator glasses? Ultra-badass. (http://axecop.com/index.php/acask/read/ask_axe_cop_8/)

[Ellye]

As a fan of Strategy games, the main issue I have with old games is the interface. The content is often still pretty good, but the UI is hard to shallow compared to current standards.
Oh, and also the AI.

Nonetheless, I can't think of any particular frustrated memory, no. The games I acquired on gog.com were not that old, though - things like Age of Wonder and such only. I'll leave the early 90s PC stuff rest in piece in my memories (though the SNES and PSX games are pretty much all still great).

[warty goblin]

40-foot carnivore with robot machine gun arms and aviator glasses? Ultra-badass. (http://axecop.com/index.php/acask/read/ask_axe_cop_8/)

Of course for maximum impact the tyrannosaur should be a half-robot remote controlled zombie amusement park ride with lasers mounted on its head (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srmDpNNIrUQ).


(Warning: Above link contains footage of Bulletstorm, which has more gleefully harmless immaturity per second than anything else on the planet. Do not watch if you object to that sort of thing.)

[Razanir]

For me the killer, particularly with strategic sorts of games, is the interfaces.

Interfaces in general. It's irritating to me when old flash games won't allow space to advance levels

[Theprettiestorc]

I think I went back and played Final Fantasy: Dirge of Cerberus recently for the PS2. And on Lunatic mode, just to challenge myself.

I was...less than impressed. >.>

[factotum]

User interface advances can make some old games seem unbearably clunky--I couldn't play Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri today because having to right-click and select from a menu every time you want a unit to do something other than move to a location is just painful when you've used more modern systems. Even relatively recent games can do some weird things--the default keybindings in GTA: San Andreas are left shift for jump/climb and space for sprint, for instance, which is pretty much the reverse of the usual way round you'd have those these days!

[DaedalusMkV]

For me, a lot of the games that really shaped my childhood just don't stand the test of time. Command and Conquer: Red Alert was the very first game I wanted enough to save up my own hard-earned money to buy, but going back to it reveals a game that's simply not up to modern standards in any respect, from a clunky UI with no hotkey shortcuts to horrid unit pathing, downright strange micromanagement and almost nonexistant balance. Meanwhile, Warcraft is nearly unplayable as a result of horrible ugliness and general user-unfriendlyness and Sim City just doesn't work in any respect for me at this point. On the other hand, Sim Ant is still the very definition of excellence.

Most of the early PC games I loved just aren't any good by modern standards. Either the graphics are eye-bleedingly bad or the UI is horrid or the actual game is so flawed or shallow that you wonder how you could ever have liked it when you were young. On the other hand, most of my favorite SNES games still stand up as pillars of excellent game design and paragons of their genres even today. Console gaming really was where it was at back then...

[Vitruviansquid]

GoG.com has been as reliable at giving me disappointment as it has at nostalgia.

[The New Bruceski]

Baldur's Gate. I got the remastered version and It just feels way too clunky. The option buttons give no text context, and the lack of autosave means my carefully crafted character died to the first wolf after the introduction and left me with nothing to show for it. It probably holds up just fine once you get going, but it's more obtuse to get started than I remembered.

[TaRix]

When it comes to dinosaur games, I've always had one very simple desire: Sim T-Rex.

I never will understand the appeal of the seemingly endless tide of mediocre multiplayer FPS games about shooting dinosaurs. Once you've hit forty foot long carnivore, adding guns only makes it less awesome.

Actually, there really was an old home computer game where you basically lived as a Tyrannosaurus, might have been called T.Rex, even. Wasn't much to it, though. Chase down food if you're not too full, don't overtax your stamina, ford the river and drink from it, leave the triceratops alone...
When you died, you saw your skeleton in a museum display, below which a limerick made fun of how you lost.

[Zombimode]

Most of the early PC games I loved just aren't any good by modern standards. Either the graphics are eye-bleedingly bad or the UI is horrid or the actual game is so flawed or shallow that you wonder how you could ever have liked it when you were young.

Funny. I have this exact impression, but from modern games in comparison to older PC games :smallamused:
Most modern games have horrible UIs. Mostly because they are tailored to consoles and thus have atrocious menus and in general much less information on screen at the same time. Compare Skyrim UI with that from Morrowind.

Old games have old graphics, big surprise. Since graphic doesn't make gameplay, this is mostly irrelevant. But the acceptance for old graphics is a very individual matter. Personally, I'm fine playing Ultima 7, but Ultima 5 and 6, or heaven forbid, stick figure Ultima's 1-4 are to much for me.

Most modern games have quite horrible game design. It's good horrible design, but still horrible design. Many modern games carter to a demographic of "players" that don't really have interest in actually playing a game. Instead they offer a predetermined set of entertainment, very much like a movie or TV-show does. Thats why single player games get increasingly easier (try playing the StarCraft 2 campaigns on normal difficulty without falling asleep), QTE replacing actual gameplay, levels getting more and more linear.

I'm not saying that older games are flawless (far from it), but I prefer the general design direction of games in the 1992-2002 era to the of the 2006-today era.


Baldur's Gate. I got the remastered version and It just feels way too clunky. The option buttons give no text context, and the lack of autosave means my carefully crafted character died to the first wolf after the introduction and left me with nothing to show for it. It probably holds up just fine once you get going, but it's more obtuse to get started than I remembered.

I haven't played the EE version because I've heard its rubbish, so maybe it is different in some of the things you mentioned compared to the original.

In the original has mouse roll over text for all buttons. There is a delay of two seconds or so, but you can skip the delay by pressing Tab.

IE games have a default autosave at area transitions. So there IS an autosave. Also, there is a quicksave feature, default key is "q".
Then: you met the first wolf only after, what, 30 minutes of gameplay?(assuming that you don't rush through the game, but take your time to talk to everyone, explore Candlekeep) And you haven't saved the game even once? Yeah... totally your fault. In addition: you are thrown into the world as a weak 1st level character, with bad equipment, almost alone. Everyone, especially Gorion, tells you to stay on the roads and go straight for the Friendly Arm Inn. And what did you do? You strayed (because you won't encounter any wolves if you just follow the road) from the roads, without equipment, without a party. And then you got eaten by a wolf. Yeah, you got what you deserve, pall.

[tensai_oni]

Clunky interface is not a problem for me.

Betrayal at Krondor? Very clunky, great game.
Ufo: Enemy Unknown? Super clunky, I still replay it every half a year or so.
System Shock (the first one)? Ridiculously awkward to play. Also ridiculously fun.

Now, what old games did disappoint me after I got to replay them:

Diggers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS6Ib9zX9ZA). Repetetive, boring gameplay. Very trial-and-error in that each map has areas you're better off avoiding unless you want to die instantly. I said I don't mind clunky interfaces, but this game's is bad. Really bad. At least the aesthetics are nice, in that mid 90s Amiga way.

Merit's Galactic Reunion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCMOwh_0Fwc). I remember thinking this game was awesome as a kid. It was also really friggin' hard. Now I know the difficulty comes from it being bugged as hell. Also there's a lot of features, but most are implemented half-assedly, giving an (entirely true) impression that a lot of content was cut to meet deadlines. I still enjoyed replaying it because of the nostalgia. But it's not a genuinely good game in any way.

[The Glyphstone]

40-foot carnivore with robot machine gun arms and aviator glasses? Ultra-badass. (http://axecop.com/index.php/acask/read/ask_axe_cop_8/)

Oh, Axe Cop. Maybe your wacked-out insanity never fade.

[Raineh Daze]

You know, reading this, I don't think there are any old games I've replayed and disliked, or even old games I've played for the first time and disliked. At most, the problem is my perpetually poor attention span.

Meanwhile, any modern games that aren't flash games end in my getting nowhere. :smallconfused:

[Murmaider]

About four years ago at a lan Dawn of War unpatched with no expansions, when I was used to Soulstorm. This game was so unplayable compared to the state it was when Soulstorm came out, I can't believe I played a demo of it, liked! it and then after I bought it, played through the whole campaign twice.

About one year ago, after getting bored of DoW II, I popped in Soulstorm in again and uninstalled it after five minutes after realizing that the game does not support newer screen resolutions and is zoomed in too friggin close compared to games I was used to one year ago(and still am), like SC 2, DoW 2 and LoL.


Oh, and trying to go back to Guild Wars after GW2 was announced. The controls just felt so bad, compared to WoW(at the time).

[satorian]

The ones I blame myself for not being able to enjoy anymore were the top-notch RPGs of their era: Betrayal at Krondor, Arcanum, and Fallout 1 and 2. Those were such good games at the time, but the clunkiness is just too much for me now. Not, mind you, the graphics, which I don't mind. In each of them it is something else. The battles in Krondor are just exhausting to me. The slowness of Fallout's battles is mind-numbing. In Arcanum, it's more the way the map works: I get lost because I am too used to seamless area transitions.

The innovations of the Infinity Engine games, pauseable real time combat and larger single area map renders, really gave those games staying power.

[DaedalusMkV]

Funny. I have this exact impression, but from modern games in comparison to older PC games :smallamused:
Most modern games have horrible UIs. Mostly because they are tailored to consoles and thus have atrocious menus and in general much less information on screen at the same time. Compare Skyrim UI with that from Morrowind.


I see nothing in your post but RPGs. Play an old RTS game, Red Alert or Warcraft, even Warcraft 2 being the obvious choices. Even Starcraft, beloved paragon that it is, suffers terribly in comparison to modern games. They're fiddly and slow and technically inferior in every respect to modern examples of the genre. I don't care much about graphics as long as they aren't completely atrocious; I can handle Red Alert just fine, though Warcraft and Sim City trip my "Aargh, low resolutions destroying my eyes" alarm. Hell, try and play Civilization. The first one. Go ahead, I'll wait. These games have not aged well at all, in large part because they were among the first of their respective genres and absolutely full of bad design decisions that would later be corrected. Red Alert has effectively no unit AI, no internal balance, pathetic pathfinding, a clunky, slow, inefficient interface and a strange game engine that make most anti-tank weapons completely ineffective when firing at a moving enemy, turning the whole game into micro-managed tank rushes. None of this was a problem in Red Alert 2, which was pretty much superior in every respect to its predecessor.

RPGs, on the other hand, were already about as refined as they ever got by that point. They had ten to fifteen years of other CRPGs to build off and ten more years of tabletop RPGs to base themselves on. Of course they fare quite a bit better, though your Morrowind example isn't necessarily a good one, Morrowind being a 21st century game. Better would be comparing FF13 to FF5 and pointing out how much simpler and more intuitive the mechanics in the latter are.

The genres you'll really see the phenomina I'm talking about are RTS, FPS and sports games, which were all in their infancy in the early to mid 90s, though the "We just hadn't thought of the right way to do it yet" problem shows up in places across the board.

[satorian]

Daedalus, I think a lot of what you are saying comes from technical limitations, not game design per se. Sure, some of the balance stuff is game design, but I think the memory and processor requirements of good AI were just out of reach. Sports, strategy and RTS, not to mention even fighting games, benefit hugely from improved AI. For RTS games, pathfinding is also limited by memory and processing.

Aside from the lack of unit hit points, Civ 1 was an entirely serviceable game (and I actually like the more streamlined gameplay of 1 and 3 compared to 4 and 5), except for one thing: the lack of any good AI meant mere exploit mastery was enough to win the same way every time. The AI limitation can be seen in the fact that the only way the programmers had to make the game harder was not to make the enemy smarter, but merely to give it material advantages.

For AI, the same is true of Dune 2 and Warcraft. If the designers had had gigabytes of space for code to inhabit, and gigahertz of speed to play with, even with all other restrictions in place, you would have seen games that played in a fashion much more "modern" than they did.

[TheEmerged]

I've been on a bit of a retro kick for the last couple of months. I'm working my way through Warcraft 2 most recently. I suspect Civ2 is going to be next.

The only problems I've run into since learning how to get some of the really old ones working in DosBox were in Wasteland. The first were a couple of the <bleep>-block fights in Vegas - in MMORPG's today they're called gearcheck fights. Back then you went back out, wandered around killing things & leveled once or twice & came back. Sometimes you just kept re-fighting the same battle with savegames until you final beat it. I found these annoying now.

The other was toward the end. I got to the final base and... I only had 3 of the 4 keys. Apparently I didn't read one of the paragraphs as closely as I should but... yeah, there was no way out of the final base if you didn't bring all four keys. Insert "save early save often" joke here.

[Mando Knight]

Insert "save early save often" joke here.

Save early, save often, and save in a new, descriptive file every time.

[Ellye]

Funny. I have this exact impression, but from modern games in comparison to older PC games
Most modern games have horrible UIs. Mostly because they are tailored to consoles and thus have atrocious menus and in general much less information on screen at the same time. Compare Skyrim UI with that from Morrowind.

Old games have old graphics, big surprise. Since graphic doesn't make gameplay, this is mostly irrelevant. But the acceptance for old graphics is a very individual matter. Personally, I'm fine playing Ultima 7, but Ultima 5 and 6, or heaven forbid, stick figure Ultima's 1-4 are to much for me.

Most modern games have quite horrible game design. It's good horrible design, but still horrible design. Many modern games carter to a demographic of "players" that don't really have interest in actually playing a game. Instead they offer a predetermined set of entertainment, very much like a movie or TV-show does. Thats why single player games get increasingly easier (try playing the StarCraft 2 campaigns on normal difficulty without falling asleep), QTE replacing actual gameplay, levels getting more and more linear.

I'm not saying that older games are flawless (far from it), but I prefer the general design direction of games in the 1992-2002 era to the of the 2006-today era.You seem to be playing the "wrong" modern games (i.e. games marketed for the console market, in those you indeed won't find what you seem to seek).

Take Crusaders Kings 2 and compare its UI and AI to CK1 or EU2 or something like that. The improvements in those areas are so huge that it's impossible to go back.
Compare Civilization IV or Civilization V to Civ I or Civ II, and those also become unplayable.
Even games for smaller companies, like, say,Conquest of Elysium 3 compared to Conquest of Elysium 1 or 2.

I'll concede that the PC market is lackluster in RPGs right now, though. Pretty much every good RPG that I can think of is made in a "old school" style.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You seem to be playing the "wrong" modern games (i.e. games marketed for the console market, in those you indeed won't find what you seem to seek).

Take Crusaders Kings 2 and compare its UI and AI to CK1 or EU2 or something like that. The improvements in those areas are so huge that it's impossible to go back.
Compare Civilization IV or Civilization V to Civ I or Civ II, and those also become unplayable.
Even games for smaller companies, like, say,Conquest of Elysium 3 compared to Conquest of Elysium 1 or 2.

I'll concede that the PC market is lackluster in RPGs right now, though. Pretty much every good RPG that I can think of is made in a "old school" style.

Yeah. PC is a poor choice for RPGs of various types, that's actually the strong point of consoles because most of them were either designed for them or exclusive to them.

But that doesn't mean there aren't lots of games that weren't designed for PC. Anything by Paradox Interactive is PC-only. And indie games. Frozen Synapse, Cave Story, Castle Story, Xenonauts, The Banner Saga, Kerbal Space Program, Sang-Froid: Tales of Werewolves. PC has no shortage of exclusive titles.

[Armaius]

When it comes to dinosaur games, I've always had one very simple desire: Sim T-Rex.


I'd suggest checking out 'Designasaurus II' for DOS. It's old, yes, but its pretty good. You basically either choose a preexisting dinosaur (yes, T-Rex is one of them), or make your own (by mixing and matching various dinosaur parts). Then your creature is sent into the prehistoric world to run around - eat, hunt, drink, try to survive etc.).

There's a story mode (long story short: your newly made dinosaur is sent back in time to gather the sixteen blueprints created by a mad scientist containing the genetic code for a super-dinosaur that could be used as a potent biological weapon. You have to get there and collect all of the blueprints before the mad scientist can get to them and puts them to use. Yes, its weird and also friggin' difficult.), but there's also an exploration/sim mode as well.

I played that game all the time as a kid - it was one of my favorites.

[Raineh Daze]

I also disagree with the 'old FPS's are bad' thing. I hate almost all modern FPS games in comparison to the 90's stuff. Never been a fan of multiplayer. :smallbiggrin:

[Forbiddenwar]

I also disagree with the 'old FPS's are bad' thing. I hate almost all modern FPS games in comparison to the 90's stuff. Never been a fan of multiplayer. :smallbiggrin:

Also
-Regenerative health
-Limited weapons
-Small maps that look exactly the same
-Auto Aim

Why do people pay money for this garbage? Where is the fun? Where is the challenge?

[Raineh Daze]

Also
-Regenerative health
-Limited weapons
-Small maps that look exactly the same
-Auto Aim

Why do people pay money for this garbage? Where is the fun? Where is the challenge?

How are those two any different from older things? Unless, by limited weapons, you can't run around with eight guns and a chainsaw.

Especially the maps comment. :smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

I also disagree with the 'old FPS's are bad' thing. I hate almost all modern FPS games in comparison to the 90's stuff. Never been a fan of multiplayer. :smallbiggrin:

I love multiplayer in FPS. The main thing is that is that the only modern "realistic" FPS is the Arma games, and they have pretty bad AI without mods.

Also, Ghost Recon was made in 2001. :smalltongue:

[Zombimode]

I see nothing in your post but RPGs. Play an old RTS game, Red Alert or Warcraft, even Warcraft 2 being the obvious choices. Even Starcraft, beloved paragon that it is, suffers terribly in comparison to modern games. They're fiddly and slow and technically inferior in every respect to modern examples of the genre. I don't care much about graphics as long as they aren't completely atrocious;

Last year after playing StarCraft 2 and being somewhat disappointed by it's gameplay (and the less is said about its story the better) I felt to go back to my gamer roots that started with RTSs, Red Alert to be specific. Since then I've played Red Alert, C&C1, C&C2 including Firestorm, currently slogging my way through the Earth 2150 trilogy (the Earth Universe version of Earth 2140 has an AI bug that makes the game sadly unplayable so I skipped that) and my Dune 2000 Atreides campaign is currently on hold until I finish Earth 2150. I've also played C&C 3 for a more modern point of comparison. And there is more on my list.
I enjoy every one of those older RTS more then I enjoyed SC2. But I'm not the best person to talk about RTS since I enjoy different things in them then apparently the majority of RTS players. I'm a single-player guy and this holds especially true for RTS, whereas most people see RTS games primarily as multi-player titles. The slower paced and often times more strategic gameplay of many older RTS appeals to me. In modern RTS I have the feeling that I just have to klick fast enough to beat the mission.
Again, I'm talking about the single-player here. If you tell me that modern RTS are a million times better for multi-player for thousands of reasons, I would believe you. It's just a mode of play I don't care about. And concering single-player, given my very recent experience and comparison of old vs. new RTS, it has sadly got worse overall. Which is a shame because most of the newer RTS have improvements in many areas over the old games: you've mentioned pathfinding, UI, AI.


Red Alert has effectively no unit AI, no internal balance, pathetic pathfinding, a clunky, slow, inefficient interface and a strange game engine that make most anti-tank weapons completely ineffective when firing at a moving enemy, turning the whole game into micro-managed tank rushes. None of this was a problem in Red Alert 2, which was pretty much superior in every respect to its predecessor.

Concerning your points about Red Alert:

Unit AI: yeah, it is lacking. Well, at least they attack enemies in their range...
No internal balance: hm, I found both factions and most units on each tech level interesting and useful. Combined arms are important and thanks to the way Westwood handles damages and unit types even infantry has its place in later missions.
Interface: I missed the ability to command a building queue but apart from that I think the standard Westwood interface is fine (although it can and has be done better).
Ballistic non-guided weaponry having troubles hitting moving targets: that a feature, not a bug. I liked the fact that I could outmaneuver tanks with fast units like the Allied Jeep.


RPGs, on the other hand, were already about as refined as they ever got by that point. They had ten to fifteen years of other CRPGs to build off and ten more years of tabletop RPGs to base themselves on. Of course they fare quite a bit better, though your Morrowind example isn't necessarily a good one, Morrowind being a 21st century game. Better would be comparing FF13 to FF5 and pointing out how much simpler and more intuitive the mechanics in the latter are.

Morrowind is a good example because it was developed before the paradigm shift in game design that occurred somewhere around 2004. The design philosophies behind Oblivion (and Skyrim) on the one hand and Morrowind on the other hand are vastly different.


The genres you'll really see the phenomina I'm talking about are RTS, FPS and sports games, which were all in their infancy in the early to mid 90s, though the "We just hadn't thought of the right way to do it yet" problem shows up in places across the board.

If you talk about the multiplayer aspect of RTS I agree with you.
I have very little experience with sports games (and even less interest in them) so sure, you probably know what you're talking about.

On FPS games, I'm not sure. To me, Half-Life 1 is still one the genre references, but I haven't really played all that many RTS titles of that area. I like Half-Life 2, but it isn't exactly a modern game.
I'm a big fan of the Stalker series, which one could call a "modern" series based on their release dates.
Other then that, well, where ARE modern FPSs anyway? It seems kind of an dying (or: old-school) genre. There is Bioshock. I didn't like the first one and I haven't followed the series after that.
There are the CRY games (FarCry, Crysis). For some reason, they never caught my interest.
Anything else?

Sure, there are a lot of shooter games out there, but they aren't really FPS. I like the term "spunkgargleweewee" for them and if you know Yathzees opinion about them you also know mine.

[Douglas]

I couldn't play Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri today because having to right-click and select from a menu every time you want a unit to do something other than move to a location is just painful when you've used more modern systems.
If you've played the game enough to get annoyed by that, you should have played the game enough to memorize all the keyboard shortcuts (which are presented right there in the menus you're complaining about) for those commands too. There are some major clunky UI problems in a lot of old games, but I don't count that as one of them.

[Reverent-One]

Sure, there are a lot of shooter games out there, but they aren't really FPS.

:smallannoyed:

Are they played through a first person view? Then yes, they really are FPSs. They aren't FPSs you like, but the definition of FPS isn't "A first person shooter that Zombiemode enjoys". And I make a point of this even though I'm not big on that set of games either.

[factotum]

Unless, by limited weapons, you can't run around with eight guns and a chainsaw.

There are modern FPS games out there where you're limited to carrying 2 weapons. Why do they do this? Part of the fun of the old-style FPS games was selecting the right weapon for the right situation (although most of the time that was the Super Shotgun in Doom 2, admittedly :smallbiggrin:), I don't see what benefit forcing the player to use only two weapons has. If anything, it wil force them to game the system by finding the best two weapons and carrying nothing else, or else force them to swap weapons immediately before a big boss fight.

[Eldariel]

Well, playing old Warcrafts, the control group limitations were certainly annoying. I finished Orcs & Humans again recently but the 4-character control groups are really annoying, as are mirrored races. Warcraft II was even worse.

Brood War I feel is in some ways superior to Starcraft II though; better balance & more versatile strategically. Red Alert and Tiberian Dawn are still the only Command & Conquer titles I find worth playing; Tiberian Sun was just boring far as gameplay goes, and it just got sillier from there.

While Q-trick is bull****, I find Red Alert gameplay supremely rewarding even if it was very hard to hold the Mass Light/Heavy Tank push in the midgame. Without Q-trick it's far less overwhelming tho and late game tech actually has a chance to shine, as well as combined armies.


FPSs by and large haven't aged well, I find. Half-Life is still among the best games of its type (mostly because modern FPSs are horrible) but Quake, Doom, Redneck Rampage, Blood, Duke 3D, etc. hardly hold my interest anymore (though of course, part of it might be the fact that I grew up and the pointless juvenile jokes and violence aren't as interesting to me anymore).

[Mando Knight]

There are modern FPS games out there where you're limited to carrying 2 weapons. Why do they do this? Part of the fun of the old-style FPS games was selecting the right weapon for the right situation (although most of the time that was the Super Shotgun in Doom 2, admittedly :smallbiggrin:), I don't see what benefit forcing the player to use only two weapons has. If anything, it wil force them to game the system by finding the best two weapons and carrying nothing else, or else force them to swap weapons immediately before a big boss fight.If there's "two best weapons" that are the only ones you're going to use ever, it doesn't matter if those are the only ones you have or if you have half a dozen other guns that you'll never use anyway.

If you are limited in the number of weapons you can carry, the choice becomes part of the game. Do you hold on to your precious kill-anything-at-point-blank shotgun because you can still get a few kills out of it yet, or do you switch to an assault rifle that has plenty of compatible ammunition lying around? Do you keep your rocket launcher when you go into enclosed areas, or are you pretty sure there's a heavily armored enemy nearby that you need the extra punch for?

It also makes multiplayer more interesting if a single player can't carry the weapons that make him a lethal threat all ranges.

[Raineh Daze]

If you are limited in the number of weapons you can carry, the choice becomes part of the game. Do you hold on to your precious kill-anything-at-point-blank shotgun because you can still get a few kills out of it yet, or do you switch to an assault rifle that has plenty of compatible ammunition lying around? Do you keep your rocket launcher when you go into enclosed areas, or are you pretty sure there's a heavily armored enemy nearby that you need the extra punch for?

There is no situation for which the combination of a rocket launcher and a shotgun isn't appropriate. Substitute other stuff if you run out of ammo. :smallbiggrin:

This also has the depressing design effects of the sudden huge rush of rocket launchers etc. tipping you off about what you're expected to blow up next. :smallfrown:

[warty goblin]

There are modern FPS games out there where you're limited to carrying 2 weapons. Why do they do this? Part of the fun of the old-style FPS games was selecting the right weapon for the right situation (although most of the time that was the Super Shotgun in Doom 2, admittedly :smallbiggrin:), I don't see what benefit forcing the player to use only two weapons has. If anything, it wil force them to game the system by finding the best two weapons and carrying nothing else, or else force them to swap weapons immediately before a big boss fight.

I actually prefer the limited number of guns. Mostly because I don't like having to spend three seconds scrolling through to get to the one I want, or trying to spider my hand halfway across the keyboard to get to the hotkey. Two or three guns are easier to deal with using the scrollwheel, and mean I can spend more time shooting dudes, and less trying to find the gun with which I want to shoot dudes.

The limited selection also adds an element of choice and long-term strategy that carrying an entire armory lacks. Taking the sniper rifle means I'm strong at long range, but weaker in close quarters, a silenced weapon means I can do stealth kills, but lose out on firepower, and so on. If the game is well built there won't be a best two weapons, but different environments and enemy types will require the player to change weapons and therefore tactics regularly. In one of the Crysis games I can switch through three or four guns in a dozen configurations over the course of an hour or so as the level design and my own whims strike me. Far Cry 2 raises gun selection to a sort of inventory balancing that puts most RPGs to shame.

Limited weapon selection is also the only thing that makes class-based multiplayer possible. Class based multiplayer of course underpins Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, perhaps the shooter I've played more than any other, albeit almost entirely against bots.


And, while we're on the subject of perceived failures of modern FPS design, I also like regenerating health. If I wanted to spend my time looking for healthpacks, I've got a copy of The Longest Journey on standby, just waiting to fulfill all of my darkest, dirtiest item hunting fantasies. Since I'm not playing that, it's a fair inference I'm not really interested in poking around dark corners, because I'm here to shoot dudes in their stupid dude faces. So no, I don't mind if all my health comes back after 5 seconds, because it reduces the tedious downtime between applications of shotgun to face. Which, in your standard corridor shooter, is really what I'm there for.

Of course it's important to keep in mind I considered all of Half Life 2 + episodes I bothered to play nothing above average, and the gravity gun a slightly finicky sort of shotgun. My view may in fact be irreparably warped.

[Gamerlord]

If there's "two best weapons" that are the only ones you're going to use ever, it doesn't matter if those are the only ones you have or if you have half a dozen other guns that you'll never use anyway.

If you are limited in the number of weapons you can carry, the choice becomes part of the game. Do you hold on to your precious kill-anything-at-point-blank shotgun because you can still get a few kills out of it yet, or do you switch to an assault rifle that has plenty of compatible ammunition lying around? Do you keep your rocket launcher when you go into enclosed areas, or are you pretty sure there's a heavily armored enemy nearby that you need the extra punch for?

The thing is, there is pretty much no point in grabbing anything except whatever has the most ammunition available, because if you ever need anything different, the developers are going to leave it conveniently nearby . Enemies far away? There is going to be a sniper rifle close by. Need to take down some heavy armor? Rocket launcher sitting about five feet away.

[Traab]

Warcraft 1-2. I reinstalled them awhile back thinking it would be neat to play again. Ewww. No. It just moves so slow. Due to how weak the game engines were back then you just couldnt do as much and I swear everything took 3x longer to make than it should.

[Mando Knight]

That is a problem that undermines weapon choice in games, sometimes... more so when you can always loot a viable weapon from a fallen enemy, just in case.

Carrying around all available weapons is hardly any different, though. Designers tend to put more rocket ammo near where you need rockets, enemies might frequently drop shotgun or rifle ammo, and so forth.

When your weapon choice is locked, like in a class-based shooter, however, things can get a little more interesting, particularly combined with other class abilities (such as health, movespeed, healing abilities, and whatnot).

[warty goblin]

The thing is, there is pretty much no point in grabbing anything except whatever has the most ammunition available, because if you ever need anything different, the developers are going to leave it conveniently nearby . Enemies far away? There is going to be a sniper rifle close by. Need to take down some heavy armor? Rocket launcher sitting about five feet away.

For certain set-pieces yes, but it's hardly like carry'em'all shooters do it any differently. Remember all those infinite RPG crates in Half-Life 2, every time a gunship showed up? For bits that aren't the sniper level or the helicopter miniboss though, there is a legitimate difference between the two.

[Alejandro]

That depends on where the guns are. Guns pointed at 40-foot carnivore? Less badass. Guns mounted on a 40-foot carnivore? Extra badass.

http://acidcow.com/pics/20091113/dorm_room_posters_14.jpg

[The New Bruceski]

I had those toys. I loved those toys.

[Ashtagon]

Well my nostalgia for the Bard's Tale series (original 80's) was recently dealt a mortal blow. ...

Oh yeah. Bard's tale. I originally played it on a Commodore 64. It had a 16-colour graphics engine. Then when my nostalgia bug kicked in and I played it on dosbox. Four colours, namely black, white, pink, and cyan. My eyes bled.

[Avilan the Grey]

This is the reason why I am hesitant to buy the new release of Baldur's Gate although the interface as I remember it was far better than the Fallout games (which I gave up on about two years ago after 2 hours of play, since I couldn't stand the interface).

[factotum]

Then when my nostalgia bug kicked in and I played it on dosbox. Four colours, namely black, white, pink, and cyan. My eyes bled.

Something not right there :smallconfused:--the original DOS version of the Bard's Tale was full colour, see the screenshots here:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/tales-of-the-unknown-volume-i-the-bards-tale

[Spuddles]

Load times, especially on PS1 games. Final Fantasy Tactics & Resident Evil 2... can't do it. Takes too long.

[Ashtagon]

Something not right there :smallconfused:--the original DOS version of the Bard's Tale was full colour, see the screenshots here:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/tales-of-the-unknown-volume-i-the-bards-tale

You're right. I think it was EotB that made my eyes bleed. BT had awful (by modern standards) sounds effects that made my ears bleed instead.

fwiw, several years ago I made a javascript toy that allowed you to world through Skara Brae, and even make (but not save) your own maps.

[Avilan the Grey]

You're right. I think it was EotB that made my eyes bleed. BT had awful (by modern standards) sounds effects that made my ears bleed instead.

EotB was also full color (256 of them!) at least on my Amiga...

[Krazzman]

From getting told how awesome Dungeonkeeper and Dungeonkeeper 2 were, as well how awesome Rollercoaster tycoon was.... well I can't live to play thorugh any of them. Dungeonkeeper is... to close. It#s not my preferred angle and managing your minions is confusing...

Rollercoaster tycoon on the other hand has the problem being weird on my monitor... I don't have the upper bars to do something since the picture is "too big" for my screen. That is sad...

Painkiller... I have bought the bundle on steam. And except that I don't have time I have got one little thing bugging me in the first part... I would like to see what I get for completing the level 100%. Not just what I have to do for it. And that they name their titles... instead of Painkiller, Painkiller 2: "Subtitle" they go Painkiller, Painkiller: Overdose, Retribution, Vanilla Ice Cream, Reckoning. I know when I finally finish Painkiller... I'll have to look up which part comes next.

And about the FPS stuff... I think Crysis was ok in weapon availablity. But what pissed me off was that you only got a sniper scope after about 1.5 hours running around on this isle...
About Duke 3D... well I played it but never got the Texture patches running for eDuke. But I thought Duke Nukem Forever to be a good game and a good dlc...
But Doom or Quake... I have never played them. I played Doom 3... for about a few minutes... i hate it when I basically just see: Black. The atmosphere wasn't really there because you just knew, zombie, then next step left for fireballthrowing zombie, stairs up, jumpscare zombie... Quake 4... the alien voices just weirded me out. Quake 4 was a better "horror"-game for me than Doom 3. Never finished it though...

[DigoDragon]

For me, the older Mario Kart games haven't aged well. I recently replayed the SNES and N64 version and it wasn't as fun as I remember. However, I still fondly love the blue shell from the N64 version over the flying one that came afterwards in later titles.

[cavalier973]

I used to play the snot out of Ghengis Khan II; years later, I found it again and played it for about 15 minutes and was like, "Oh, yeah. It takes forever to get to the point where the game is actually fun."

[Abemad]

From getting told how awesome Dungeonkeeper and Dungeonkeeper 2 were, as well how awesome Rollercoaster tycoon was.... well I can't live to play thorugh any of them. Dungeonkeeper is... to close. It#s not my preferred angle and managing your minions is confusing...

Rollercoaster tycoon on the other hand has the problem being weird on my monitor... I don't have the upper bars to do something since the picture is "too big" for my screen. That is sad...

Painkiller... I have bought the bundle on steam. And except that I don't have time I have got one little thing bugging me in the first part... I would like to see what I get for completing the level 100%. Not just what I have to do for it. And that they name their titles... instead of Painkiller, Painkiller 2: "Subtitle" they go Painkiller, Painkiller: Overdose, Retribution, Vanilla Ice Cream, Reckoning. I know when I finally finish Painkiller... I'll have to look up which part comes next.

And about the FPS stuff... I think Crysis was ok in weapon availablity. But what pissed me off was that you only got a sniper scope after about 1.5 hours running around on this isle...
About Duke 3D... well I played it but never got the Texture patches running for eDuke. But I thought Duke Nukem Forever to be a good game and a good dlc...
But Doom or Quake... I have never played them. I played Doom 3... for about a few minutes... i hate it when I basically just see: Black. The atmosphere wasn't really there because you just knew, zombie, then next step left for fireballthrowing zombie, stairs up, jumpscare zombie... Quake 4... the alien voices just weirded me out. Quake 4 was a better "horror"-game for me than Doom 3. Never finished it though...

You could try Rollercoaster Tycoon 2, its very similar to the first game...

I remember playing Hexen and Heretic recently in software called "Doomsday", it was great :D heretic especially has aged quite well

[Airk]

EotB was also full color (256 of them!) at least on my Amiga...

Yeah, no, Eye of the Beholder was post-VGA graphics, so it was actually tolerable.

OTOH, I think there may have been a CGA only version of The Bard's Tale. Either way though, that game awful. The only reason we played it back in the day is we didn't have anything better.

Oddly, I almost never have "This isn't nearly as good as I remembered..." moments. Even though I spent tons of time playing, say, Bard's Tale 2, I KNOW, OBJECTIVELY, without needing to go back, that that game was not, in fact, all that good, and that I should not go and attempt to play it now.

On the other hand, Tunnels of Doom is still surprisingly good, even though the graphics are absolute garbage.

[Gnoman]

The issue with The Bard's Tale was almost certainly a setup issue. Run the SETUP.EXE program and change it to "EGA Monitor." The other settings (except Tandy) will set it to 4-color CGA mode.

[INoKnowNames]

I actually did have one issue with a game that I thought I was just bad at, but was otherwise.... eh, a half baked game at best, given what they did with the character, even if the next game in the series after it was the -worst- -game- -ever-.

I played it again sometime last year, and found out that it was definitely not my lame skills. There were lots of annoying, horribly implemented platforming sections in Shadow the Hedgehog that made the game -hair- pullingly ridiculous...

And needing to play through the game 10 times to get the final ending wasn't particularly rewarding. Neither was the final challenge that makes you play through all the levels again, that ends up giving you nothing for your work...

[Craft (Cheese)]

Of course for maximum impact the tyrannosaur should be a half-robot remote controlled zombie amusement park ride with lasers mounted on its head (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srmDpNNIrUQ).


(Warning: Above link contains footage of Bulletstorm, which has more gleefully harmless immaturity per second than anything else on the planet. Do not watch if you object to that sort of thing.)

Dammit, now I have to play this.

As for the weapon-switching thing:

Weapon selection wheels. Everybody hates them because they were designed to be used on consoles with the analog stick, but I think with a few modifications they can be a really effective UI widget on the PC as well. Here's a quick mock-up of how I think it could work:

http://i.imgur.com/jvsCExz.png

The numbers 1-8 represent the weapons available to the player ranging from most to least commonly used. The player uses a dedicated weapon-selection key (tab?), at which point the mouse stops controlling the camera and instead becomes a cursor on this interface. Clicking the weapon's corresponding panel closes the weapon-selection interface and switches the player's weapon to the appropriate one. We could also easily have a "switch back to last-used weapon" hotkey. Open questions:

- Whats the exact optimal size and shape for each panel? We want to maximize the speed with which the player can switch to their new weapon and minimize the chance of error. We definitely want them at the edges for this purpose (and this is where most PC ports of weapon wheels go wrong), but the shapes may not be best: 1-4 might be too big, and 5/8 might be too small.

- Should we always start the cursor at the center, or should it remember the position? Starting in the center should be optimal for speed, but users might have a strong expectation for the cursor's position to be persistent, and disorientation from this might outweigh the speed benefits. This needs rigorous testing.

- Should bringing up the weapon selection interface pause the action? Probably depends on the game, but unsure which parameters are relevant. I suspect the answer to that question will be surprising.

On-topic: I know everyone's gonna hate me for saying this, but I'm gonna say Half-Life 2. I was absolutely amazed by it when it came out, but now it's just good instead of amazing. Unfortunately every replay reveals more and more flaws I had overlooked before. It works great the first time through, but when you stop and poke at the game with a stick on repeated playthroughs you run into all sorts of ugly seams and design hacks.

[factotum]

What does that proposal offer that counteracts the fact it's still slower and clunkier than just pressing a number key on the keyboard? Basically, games should be written to make best use of a certain type of controller, and stick with what works in UI terms with that. If you have a game that pretty much requires a controller of some sort (e.g. pretty much any driving/racing game) then sure, put a console-style UI on it to make it easier to use with the controller. Don't do that for RPGs or FPSs, though!

[Craft (Cheese)]

What does that proposal offer that counteracts the fact it's still slower and clunkier than just pressing a number key on the keyboard? Basically, games should be written to make best use of a certain type of controller, and stick with what works in UI terms with that. If you have a game that pretty much requires a controller of some sort (e.g. pretty much any driving/racing game) then sure, put a console-style UI on it to make it easier to use with the controller. Don't do that for RPGs or FPSs, though!

Obviously it's not intended for all games: It is, however, intended to mitigate the problem warty was complaining about, which is not being able to switch between a large number of weapons fast enough in older FPSes. I'll be the first to admit it'd be rather pointless in a game like Halo.

[Mando Knight]

Something like that was done in the Wii versions of the Metroid Prime games: hold down one button and the screen brings up a window showing your visor modes (or beam modes, for 1 and 2). You hold the button, move the cursor over the section that has your desired mode, then release. With practice, it becomes about as seamless as mode selection in the Gamecube versions.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Something like that was done in the Wii versions of the Metroid Prime games: hold down one button and the screen brings up a window showing your visor modes (or beam modes, for 1 and 2). You hold the button, move the cursor over the section that has your desired mode, then release. With practice, it becomes about as seamless as mode selection in the Gamecube versions.

In my opinion, more seamless, honestly. I can't be the only one who hated taking my thumb off the main analog stick to screw with the Gamecube's comically tiny D-pad, can I?

[warty goblin]

Obviously it's not intended for all games: It is, however, intended to mitigate the problem warty was complaining about, which is not being able to switch between a large number of weapons fast enough in older FPSes. I'll be the first to admit it'd be rather pointless in a game like Halo.

Which for some things works fine. The thing is in the realm of FPSs, I quite often want to change weapons very, very quickly while still maintaining full mobility. Losing the fine direction control offered by the mouse is not what I want to deal with when the assault rifle ran dry and I need that shotgun right now. What I want is the shotgun.

[Gligarman2]

You seem to be playing the "wrong" modern games (i.e. games marketed for the console market, in those you indeed won't find what you seem to seek).

Take Crusaders Kings 2 and compare its UI and AI to CK1 or EU2 or something like that. The improvements in those areas are so huge that it's impossible to go back.
Compare Civilization IV or Civilization V to Civ I or Civ II, and those also become unplayable.
Even games for smaller companies, like, say,Conquest of Elysium 3 compared to Conquest of Elysium 1 or 2.

I'll concede that the PC market is lackluster in RPGs right now, though. Pretty much every good RPG that I can think of is made in a "old school" style.

Really? I liked CKI way more than CKII in pretty much every way. Guess it's just taste.

[Yora]

I just played through Starcraft again. And while it is still very good, I noticed this time that it is rather repetitive and that there are way too many unit abilities that can take out entire groups of units with just one click. Especially when your units get clustered. Which you don't really have any way to prevent.
Defilers, Science Vessels, High Templars, Dark Templars, Infested Terrans, Queens, Arbiters, and probably a couple more.

Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 clearly did that better.

[Eldariel]

Defilers, Science Vessels, High Templars, Dark Templars, Infested Terrans, Queens, Arbiters, and probably a couple more.

Is that really a problem though? 'cause those are high cost casters and energy is hard to come by in the game; I'd say it's more a game-defining trait than a problem. Their very nature forces them to remain support units albeit very powerful ones.

A good Terran army for instance certainly includes Science Vessels but you generally can't have more than 5-10 vs. your hundred mech units or infantry. And Protoss almost always wants to incorporate at least some Templar and Arbiters as applicable but the number you can make good use of is very low. Same goes for Defilers. Queens are hard to make room for period since every Queen you produce is a Mutalisk you don't produce and Mutalisks are the workhorses while Queens are kinda novelty. And Infested Terrans by their very nature are very limited.


Their power also enables a player to come back from behind with few clutch Storms or EMPs or whatever and keeps the game close for much longer. Which I certainly think counts as a positive.

[Abemad]

Is that really a problem though? 'cause those are high cost casters and energy is hard to come by in the game; I'd say it's more a game-defining trait than a problem. Their very nature forces them to remain support units albeit very powerful ones.

A good Terran army for instance certainly includes Science Vessels but you generally can't have more than 5-10 vs. your hundred mech units or infantry. And Protoss almost always wants to incorporate at least some Templar and Arbiters as applicable but the number you can make good use of is very low. Same goes for Defilers. Queens are hard to make room for period since every Queen you produce is a Mutalisk you don't produce and Mutalisks are the workhorses while Queens are kinda novelty. And Infested Terrans by their very nature are very limited.


Their power also enables a player to come back from behind with few clutch Storms or EMPs or whatever and keeps the game close for much longer. Which I certainly think counts as a positive.

That, and the micro management is a pain compared to warcraft 3 :smallannoyed: but its still a great game, even if the singleplayer campaign gets rather easy after playing a lot of multiplayer :smallsmile:

[BoredAshley]

A lot of games which I played when i was younger looks bad for me now. But I still have a lot of sentiment for them.