Current Events > Do you still play your old video games?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean video games from the PS2 era, SNES & Genesis era, and NES era.

no

i still play 360 games tho
---

nope i tried playing 360 games again cant do it
---

I got an NES and a SNES and they just sit there staring at me. I play the Gamecube though occasionally because NHL Hitz is fun to play with people when you're hammered!
---

No. That's why I don't get the love for backwards compatibility or retro collecting outside of digital content. I'd always rather have one or two machines hooked up that can play what I want then to have multiple consoles and boxes taking up limited space.
---

CADE FOSTER posted...

nope i tried playing 360 games again cant do it

They're enhanced on Xbox 1 though.
---

Makeveli_lives posted...

No. That's why I don't get the love for backwards compatibility or retro collecting outside of digital content. I'd always rather have one or two machines hooked up that can play what I want then to have multiple consoles and boxes taking up limited space.

This i dont care for backwards comp if i buy a ps5 or xbone 2 i want to play new games not old shit rehashed
---

nes - yes
snes - yes
genesis - yes
saturn - yes
n64 - yes
ps - yes
ps2- yes
ps3 - no
xbox - yes
xbox 360 - yes
---

I still often play PS1 and PS2 games. I got rid of all my NES/SNES stuff like 5 years ago and regret it.

I still play Blades of Steel and R.B.I Baseball 2 with a buddy when I go over to his place.
---

Have over 30 systems hooked up or ready to play the case of handhelds, I try to mix it up as much as possible as modern gaming at least AAA has become less appealing to me.

Makeveli_lives posted...

CADE FOSTER posted...

nope i tried playing 360 games again cant do it

They're enhanced on Xbox 1 though.

upscaled games still arent great tbh
---

was playing legend of legaia last night

Not that often anymore. I still use my PS3 though. I definitely want to get back and play my PS1/N64 though.
---

Yes.

Yes. I don't find many games these days that interesting.
---

Yeah. I play retro stuff all the time.

Yeah. My girlfriend, my friends and I play local multiplayer games together pretty regularly and many of them are old
---

All the time.

Good games never stop being good. Convincing gamers that you have to only enjoy what's brand new and expensive and then discard it forever has been the most bizarre yet utterly successful lie the games industry has ever told.

Don't misquote me. I'm not one of those idiots who claims everything new sucks. There's tons of amazing shit being made all the time.

My point is that age has nothing to do with it. A shit game from 1983 is shit. A shit game from 2018 is shit

A good game from 1984 is good, a good game from 2019 is good.

Sure there are some things that are objectively superior, like for example faster loading times, better save systems, easier to get running etc.

But the game itself? The idea that "fun" stops being fun the second the game isn't new is insane. If you believe that then I truly think you've been mindbroken by the games industry.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

All the time.

Good games never stop being good. Convincing gamers that you have to only enjoy what's brand new and expensive and then discard it forever has been the most bizarre yet utterly successful lie the games industry has ever told.

Don't misquote me. I'm not one of those idiots who claims everything new sucks. There's tons of amazing shit being made all the time.

My point is that age has nothing to do with it. A shit game from 1983 is shit. A shit game from 2018 is shit

A good game from 1984 is good, a good game from 2019 is good.

Sure there are some things that are objectively superior, like for example faster loading times, better save systems, easier to get running etc.

But the game itself? The idea that "fun" stops being fun the second the game isn't new is insane. If you believe that then I truly think you've been mindbroken by the games industry.

I disagree. Some old games are still amazing. Donkey Kong Country is still a fantastic platformer that looks and sounds great.

When I was a little kid, Super Mario 64 blew my mind. Have you played it lately? It has aged poorly. It's like a movie that once had cutting edge CG in 1997 being viewed today. That may be an issue with that generation though; I find few N64/PS1 games are as good as I remember them being.

It's hard for me to recommend that someone play SM64 over Sunshine, Galaxy, or Odyssey.

_Rinku_ posted...

I disagree. Some old games are still amazing. Donkey Kong Country is still a fantastic platformer that looks and sounds great.

When I was a little kid, Super Mario 64 blew my mind. Have you played it lately? It has aged poorly. It's like a movie that once had cutting edge CG in 1997 being viewed today. That may be an issue with that generation though; I find few N64/PS1 games are as good as I remember them being.

It's hard for me to recommend that someone play SM64 over Sunshine, Galaxy, or Odyssey.

Well you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree.

Sure plenty of games are less fun when you go back to them because the nostalgia is gone, or the inability to load quickly or because you didn't know better

But that just means the game wasn't actually that good.

I guess the difference is I never really cared about graphics. I don't get "The shooting is fantastic and the story is amazing but the graphics are old so it's not a fun game. I prefer this brand new game with terrible shooting and a shit story that looks great for the next 2 years" To me that's madness.

But If you do care about graphics then you will hate older games.

All the examples I can think of are Bioware here so I feel a little guilty lol but look at Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect. Even on release their graphics were dated and yet they are still superior to most RPGs being released today.

I don't look back and go "Man look how bad the 2002 3D graphics are" I go "Maybe I'll be a fucking gnome this time!"
---

Yeah

Though most of the time I'll play on an emu for the better features, controller and convenience (save states, graphics/sound enhancement, turbo mode etc) rather than drag out the old system and games from my closet

Usually I find I get used to old graphics pretty quickly after playing for a bit and they don't bother me

Though clunky mechanics or interface can be harder to get past.
---

_Rinku_ posted...

Have you played it lately? It has aged poorly.

I automatically ignore the opinion of anybody who makes this statement. It's one of the stupidest things in all of gaming. I can't stress enough how idiotic that statement has been in every single scenario it has ever been used.

Is the game good? If the answer was "yes" when it came out, the answer is still "yes" now. It's the exact same game. It didn't magically become bad just because it's been sitting in your closet for 20 years.

Does it play differently, or have different controls, or have the levels been changed, or literally anything about the game been changed? No? So you're telling me literally the only thing that's different is that modern games that use more resources on more powerful machines are prettier? That's enough for me to know someone is a terrible source for gaming opinions.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

I disagree. Some old games are still amazing. Donkey Kong Country is still a fantastic platformer that looks and sounds great.

When I was a little kid, Super Mario 64 blew my mind. Have you played it lately? It has aged poorly. It's like a movie that once had cutting edge CG in 1997 being viewed today. That may be an issue with that generation though; I find few N64/PS1 games are as good as I remember them being.

It's hard for me to recommend that someone play SM64 over Sunshine, Galaxy, or Odyssey.

Well you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree.

Sure plenty of games are less fun when you go back to them because the nostalgia is gone, or the inability to load quickly or because you didn't know better

But that just means the game wasn't actually that good.

I guess the difference is I never really cared about graphics. I don't get "The shooting is fantastic and the story is amazing but the graphics are old so it's not a fun game. I prefer this brand new game with terrible shooting and a shit story that looks great for the next 2 years" To me that's madness.

But If you do care about graphics then you will hate older games.

All the examples I can think of are Bioware here so I feel a little guilty lol but look at Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect. Even on release their graphics were dated and yet they are still superior to most RPGs being released today.

I don't look back and go "Man look how bad the 2002 3D graphics are" I go "Maybe I'll be a fucking gnome this time!"

I wasn't saying it was all about graphics. SM64 has stiff controls compared to modern platformers. It was revolutionary at the time, but now it just feels frustrating. The game also feels bloated and really loses steam by the last area (Tick Tock Clock is just... tedious to play, imo).

When part of the appeal was "Hey, look how well it does [x]" and [x] has been done miles better in newer products, it's hard to go back. SM64 was great back in the day; it's just less so now.

I play plenty of games with dated graphics. I don't know what kind of people you're hanging around that play games that feel terrible, but look good.

I do play retro games, but through virtual consoles, Switch's NES channel, and SNES mini. Am currently playing the Castlevania collection.

Last time I actually hooked up an old console to play a retro game was my PS2 when I decided to finally check out Chrono Cross (game turned out good, but nowhere near as good as Trigger). That was over a year ago I think.

Aristoph posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Have you played it lately? It has aged poorly.

I automatically ignore the opinion of anybody who makes this statement. It's one of the stupidest things in all of gaming. I can't stress enough how idiotic that statement has been in every single scenario it has ever been used.

Is the game good? If the answer was "yes" when it came out, the answer is still "yes" now. It's the exact same game. It didn't magically become bad just because it's been sitting in your closet for 20 years.

Does it play differently, or have different controls, or have the levels been changed, or literally anything about the game been changed? No? So you're telling me literally the only thing that's different is that modern games that use more resources on more powerful machines are prettier? That's enough for me to know someone is a terrible source for gaming opinions.

Literally not what I said, but go off I guess. Just speaking as someone who played SM64 as a little kid (all 120 stars) and as an adult (just getting 70 was a struggle). It just doesn't feel as good nowadays. The standard of what a good platformer feels like has changed because developers have gotten more experience with what works in a three dimensional environment. It's not because of "money being pumped into machines to make things look prettier." It's weird how you both jumped on this "you just think graphics are king" argument when that was literally not my point at all.

You come off as someone who needs to take off their rose-tinted glasses. Things improve and consequently, older things aren't as good in comparison. Games, and most media, don't exist in a vacuum.

Tupacrulez posted...

Yes. I don't find many games these days that interesting.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

Literally not what I said,

The only thing you mentioned was how it looks:

_Rinku_ posted...

It's like a movie that once had cutting edge CG in 1997 being viewed today.

It wasn't until you got called out on it that you decided to throw up the defense of it having bad controls and pacing issues. So you're pretty much trying to retroactively claim that it wasn't actually a good game when it came out.

The controls are fine. They were perfectly adequate for navigating the game world back then (and doing some pretty impressive maneuvers, in fact) and they still are today.

The only issue I have ever had with the controls of SM64 is how finicky it can be to get the camera in the position you want at times, which is something myself and countless others complained about back when it first released too. But you're acting like there's been some kind of monumental leap in platforming controls since then which is just objectively not true. Pretty much the only change that's even noteworthy since the release of SM64 is that many platformers these days have more than 8 directions on their analog stick. Also using a second analog stick for camera movement instead of the C-buttons, but camera control is still an issue today, so even that hasn't changed much.
---

Yes, but not physically using the original carts and discs that I have in storage crates. I just emulate them all in the laptop connected to my living room TV, just much more convenient.

Aristoph posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Literally not what I said,

The only thing you mentioned was how it looks:

_Rinku_ posted...

It's like a movie that once had cutting edge CG in 1997 being viewed today.

It wasn't until you got called out on it that you decided to throw up the defense of it having bad controls and pacing issues. So you're pretty much trying to retroactively claim that it wasn't actually a good game when it came out.

The controls are fine. They were perfectly adequate for navigating the game world back then (and doing some pretty impressive maneuvers, in fact) and they still are today.

The only issue I have ever had with the controls of SM64 is how finicky it can be to get the camera in the position you want at times, which is something myself and countless others complained about back when it first released too. But you're acting like there's been some kind of monumental leap in platforming controls since then which is just objectively not true. Pretty much the only change that's even noteworthy since the release of SM64 is that many platformers these days have more than 8 directions on their analog stick. Also using a second analog stick for camera movement instead of the C-buttons, but camera control is still an issue today, so even that hasn't changed much.

That was a comparison meant to show "this was impressive then, but less so now." I wasn't saying the graphics were bad. You read what you wanted to read there. Notice how I said "have you played it lately" and not "have you looked at it lately." I also was just elaborating on my feelings about the game in regards to the pacing, since the other guy thought I was just railing about graphics.

More than eight directions and better camera control is a pretty monumental leap forward for the genre, yeah. I think that SM64's controls feel stiff now because I've played newer platformers and felt what better controls feel like.

You're being weirdly aggro over my opinion on an old platformer. I think it's aged poorly because the controls are stiff and the back end of the game feels like a slog. Yeah, that's in comparison to modern platformers because it exists alongside them. I hope you understand I'm not saying SM64 is a bad game.

Been playing persona 2-4 games Its funny I played all of them on pc and was planning to play 5 on pc however atlas had other plans......
---

_Rinku_ posted...

More than eight directions and better camera control is a pretty monumental leap forward for the genre, yeah.

It's really not.

_Rinku_ posted...

I hope you understand I'm not saying SM64 is a bad game.

I mean, that's literally what you're doing, but whatever.

For the record, I actually sat down and played SM64 earlier this week because my brother asked if he could borrow my N64, and I wanted to plug it in and make sure everything was still working before I took it over to him. The controls are not dated at all. You seem to forget that while the controls are not as advanced as modern games, the entire game was DESIGNED WITH THOSE CONTROLS IN MIND. If a game only allows you to move in increments of 45 degree angles, they're not going to place platforms and objectives at 20 degree angles. If you're playing an old game and you're trying to, for example, line up a jump and the controls seem to be unable to get you into the right position, it's more than likely because you're doing it wrong and aren't going the right way. It's not the jump you are meant to take there. That's not the fault of the controls. That's on you as a player.

Every game that comes out has different controls. All of them. When I pick up a new game, it probably takes me all of ~10 minutes to readjust to the nuances of the different game engine and how it handles my inputs. If you can't adjust in the same way to the controls of older games as you do for every new game that comes out, it just means you're not very good at video games.
---

Aristoph posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

More than eight directions and better camera control is a pretty monumental leap forward for the genre, yeah.

It's really not.

_Rinku_ posted...

I hope you understand I'm not saying SM64 is a bad game.

I mean, that's literally what you're doing, but whatever.

For the record, I actually sat down and played SM64 earlier this week because my brother asked if he could borrow my N64, and I wanted to plug it in and make sure everything was still working before I took it over to him. The controls are not dated at all. You seem to forget that while the controls are not as advanced as modern games, the entire game was DESIGNED WITH THOSE CONTROLS IN MIND. If a game only allows you to move in increments of 45 degree angles, they're not going to place platforms and objectives at 20 degree angles. If you're playing an old game and you're trying to, for example, line up a jump and the controls seem to be unable to get you into the right position, it's more than likely because you're doing it wrong and aren't going the right way. It's not the jump you are meant to take there. That's not the fault of the controls. That's on you as a player.

Every game that comes out has different controls. All of them. When I pick up a new game, it probably takes me all of ~10 minutes to readjust to the nuances of the different game engine and how it handles my inputs. If you can't adjust in the same way to the controls of older games as you do for every new game that comes out, it just means you're not very good at video games.

Okay, you're just trying to put words in my mouth and make wild accusations at this point. It's really sad.

Never said SM64 is a bad game. What I did say was that it has aged poorly. You need to learn to be okay with someone not having the same opinion as you.

There are plenty of games that have aged poorly that I still like. The first Kingdom Hearts, even the final mix revision of it, is rough in a lot of places, but I still like it. SM64 is similar: rough and clearly an early foray into the third dimension. Had a ton of fun with it as a kid, but had less fun as an adult for the reasons I mentioned.

Again, you're being really aggressive over something so trivial. Nice humblebrag about being able to adjust to the controls. Guess what: I can do that too lol. It doesn't make you special.

_Rinku_ posted...

Never said SM64 is a bad game. What I did say was that it has aged poorly. You need to learn to be okay with someone not having the same opinion as you.

What you said was that the game isn't good "anymore" because the controls suck, the camera sucks, the graphics are bad, and the pacing of the gameplay was terrible.

Funny thing is that literally all of those things are exactly the same now as they were back then. So if they all suck now, and they haven't changed in any way, it means they must have sucked back then.

So there's really 2 options to resolve this:
1. You were a dumb kid that didn't know any better, so even though the game sucked you still enjoyed it through being naive. Now you look at it with a more experienced mind and see that it has always sucked.
2. You thought the game sucked back then and you still think it sucks now.

It is impossible for a game, which has not changed even a single byte of its code or pixel of its environment, to "become bad." It's the same game. It's EXACTLY the same game. It doesn't get worse. It doesn't get better. It already just is what it is. A good game is always a good game. Your personal tastes can change, but that's got nothing to do with "how the game ages." It's got everything to do with how YOU age.

If someone says "I don't enjoy it as much as I did back then" that is a perfectly fine statement. They take ownership of the fact that they're the thing that is different. The game is still as good as it ever was, their tastes have simply changed over time.

If they say "the game has aged poorly" then they are a moron and their opinion is best ignored.
---

Aristoph posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

Have you played it lately? It has aged poorly.

I automatically ignore the opinion of anybody who makes this statement. It's one of the stupidest things in all of gaming. I can't stress enough how idiotic that statement has been in every single scenario it has ever been used.

Is the game good? If the answer was "yes" when it came out, the answer is still "yes" now. It's the exact same game. It didn't magically become bad just because it's been sitting in your closet for 20 years.

Does it play differently, or have different controls, or have the levels been changed, or literally anything about the game been changed? No? So you're telling me literally the only thing that's different is that modern games that use more resources on more powerful machines are prettier? That's enough for me to know someone is a terrible source for gaming opinions.

Pokemon was revolutionary to me. But only because of the trade and battle mechanics that encouraged actual interaction with other players. Going back to it now is shit. Everything is so slow, the mechanics are trash, the variety is shit, etc. Real talk, platinum is among my favorite titles of all time but I can't force myself through any pokemon game prior to to gen 5 these days.

I refuse to put myself through that. Thus the game aged badly.
---

_Rinku_ posted...

When I was a little kid, Super Mario 64 blew my mind. Have you played it lately? It has aged poorly.

Just my personal opinion, but to me SM64 holds up because I thought it looked like trash when I first saw it haha.

When I first saw SM64 as a kid, I was not impressed. It looked blocky, generic and dull. I remember thinking "this is all you got nintendo?" I remember seeing previews in nintendo power magazine before the game dropped and thinking "wait is this game even finished? It doesn't look finished? I was so unimpressed that I got like 10 stars in the game and didn't touch my N64 until much later after MarioKart64 was finally released. To me, SM64 was just another mario game but in 3D.

But after I finished MK64, the only other game I had was SM64, so I was like "meh, lets give it another shot" and ended up completing it 100%. It gave me a truly impactful appreciation for that game... 15 different courses, the bowser levels, peaches castle... not because they were graphically beautiful worlds... but because they were just good enough to express their themes, get their point across like "hey, you're in a desert, hey you're in a clock, hey you're in the sky, hey you're in a cave" while enabling really fun gameplay.

Shoot... I'll take it one step further and say that I like the fact that the game kicks you out after each star, which is a common complaint I've seen cropping up lately. To me, it was really fun to discover a star from another mission that you weren't actually searching for... and then jump back in and try to fill in the gaps like "wow! I found the 6th star that time? I wonder where all these other ones that I'm missing could be hidden". I find it a lot more fun than super mario sunshine, and can still replay it to this day.
---

Aristoph posted...

You really need to learn to read and to not take things so personally.

Makeveli_lives posted...

Pokemon was revolutionary to me. But only because of the trade and battle mechanics that encouraged actual interaction with other players. Going back to it now is shit. Everything is so slow, the mechanics are trash, the variety is shit, etc. Real talk, platinum is among my favorite titles of all time but I can't force myself through any pokemon game prior to to gen 5 these days.

I refuse to put myself through that. Thus the game aged badly.

This is how I felt playing through Red when it got released on the 3DS. Having to sloooowly walk everywhere made it a drag, but I know it was a great game when I played it as a kid.

HairyThotter posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

When I was a little kid, Super Mario 64 blew my mind. Have you played it lately? It has aged poorly.

Just my personal opinion, but to me SM64 holds up because I thought it looked like trash when I first saw it haha.

When I first saw SM64 as a kid, I was not impressed. It looked blocky, generic and dull. I remember thinking "this is all you got nintendo?" I remember seeing previews in nintendo power magazine before the game dropped and thinking "wait is this game even finished? It doesn't look finished? I was so unimpressed that I got like 10 stars in the game and didn't touch my N64 until much later after MarioKart64 was finally released. To me, SM64 was just another mario game but in 3D.

But after I finished MK64, the only other game I had was SM64, so I was like "meh, lets give it another shot" and ended up completing it 100%. It gave me a truly impactful appreciation for that game... 15 different courses, the bowser levels, peaches castle... not because they were graphically beautiful worlds... but because they were just good enough to express their themes, get their point across like "hey, you're in a desert, hey you're in a clock, hey you're in the sky, hey you're in a cave" while enabling really fun gameplay.

Shoot... I'll take it one step further and say that I like the fact that the game kicks you out after each star, which is a common complaint I've seen cropping up lately. To me, it was really fun to discover a star from another mission that you weren't actually searching for... and then jump back in and try to fill in the gaps like "wow! I found the 6th star that time? I wonder where all these other ones that I'm missing could be hidden". I find it a lot more fun than super mario sunshine, and can still replay it to this day.

I'm actually more in the camp of "I thought it was amazing because it looked so blocky" and my imagination vividly filled in the gaps to make it seem that much more amazing. I had a similar experience the first time I got to Hyrule Field in Ocarina of Time. I can't begin to describe how vast that world seemed to little me.

Maybe I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but I can't do it anymore. I know exactly how big the world is, so there's no air of mystery. It makes me sad.

Maybe I've just played it too many times, but I do get annoyed by getting booted after you get a star. My last playthrough, I got the bare minimum (and entirely skipped Shifting Sand Land) because I just wasn't having fun. I had a similar problem when I tried to play through OoT for its 20th anniversary. Got to the Fire Temple and just couldn't bring myself to play it anymore. I don't find challenges like three hearts particularly fun either at this point.

On my nes mini and my snes mini, yes.

Hoping to get the Sega one and get some games with it and I'll be set.
---