Poll of the Day > What games would consider the greatest of all time, that don't hold up now?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Are there any games like this?

I think a lot of people consider "Super Metroid" to be one of the greatest. And I think it is arguably still good today.

I can't think of any games that might be considered the greatest game that don't hold up though. I think you could argue that playing FF7 or Ocarina of Time now might feel super dated, or plagued by bad controls. But I didn't play either game so I don't know if that is universal.

FF7 plays fine today. The graphics on the newest steam version are fine. the controls are kinda weird in places but essentially it's just menus and walking.

Metal Gear Solid

Most 3D platformers before they figured out cameras and controls.

Warcraft is an awesome game that is pretty much unplayable by today's standards. If any game needs a "reforged" edition it is that.

I have always argued the worst part about the Mega Man Legends series is that the games aged like milk. Hell, they were pretty bad control-wise by late 90's standards.

Anything at all on the PS1 or Saturn that is considered good... simply cuz of hardware junk, same goes for DOS (and earlier) computer games

IIRC the first Spyro game was before they had an analog controller for PS1, so even if you are playing it with an analog stick or on PS3/PSP/Vita, you're still stuck moving in 8 directions

Star Wars: Dark Forces

It was an awesome game when it came out, but the controls are pretty bad compared to modern FPS games and the graphics look like complete ass.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/1/0/AAQwHjAADcuu.jpg

I'm playing through pokemon yellow again and, while I love it, the franchise has improved a lot since then

Morrowind

Muscles posted...

I'm playing through pokemon yellow again and, while I love it, the franchise has improved a lot since then

BlackScythe0 posted...

Morrowind

These are both excellent examples. The first generation Pokemon games were diamonds in the rough - they created an excellent formula for the games that followed, but their actual execution was not great (psychic being horrendously overpowered, half the types only having a few moves to their name, etc.). And while ES fanboys love to sing Morrowind's praises, it's very much a product of its time and there's a reason why Oblivion and Skyrim did away with a lot of its more obtuse elements.

I guess you could even say Oblivion no longer holds up due to all the bizarre glitches, still one of the greatest games

Can't think of one in my personal list. There are tons of games people considered GOAT material that simply don't hold up IMO.

FF VII being the first that comes to mind.

darkknight109 posted...

And while ES fanboys love to sing Morrowind's praises, it's very much a product of its time and there's a reason why Oblivion and Skyrim did away with a lot of its more obtuse elements.

Morrowind deserves praise though. Great story, great setting, great quests, ect. The major problems are due to age, while in it's time the game looked great and was interesting to look at today it's fucking hideous. They hidden roll system that allowed to to miss hits you were just visually hitting was awful. Having to hold the stealth key down the entire time you stealthed made it so I never did it.

I'm not immediately sure what you mean by obtuse elements but there really isn't that much wrong with the game.

I legitimately do not understand how people today could think Chrono Trigger is the best game of all time except nostalgia, and I've seen that opinion pretty often here.

Came to say FF7, but really it's most FF games.

Agree completely with Pokmon. Imo they're unplayable without modding the hell out of them or running a romhack.

Could not disagree more with Morrowind. I still play that game a couple times a year and it's just as good as it ever was. I find it much easier to get into than Skyrim at least.

DocDelicious posted...

Agree completely with Pokmon. Imo they're unplayable without modding the hell out of them or running a romhack.

playing that shit in college was a pretty amazing experience but mostly because of the number of players. i remember during the b/w era, i could find others at the food court pretty much 24/7, and it wasn't even a big college

most Telltale games imo

a lot of them would be classics if they werent on such a clunky engine

BlackScythe0 posted...

Morrowind deserves praise though. Great story, great setting, great quests, ect. The major problems are due to age, while in it's time the game looked great and was interesting to look at today it's fucking hideous. They hidden roll system that allowed to to miss hits you were just visually hitting was awful. Having to hold the stealth key down the entire time you stealthed made it so I never did it.

I'm not immediately sure what you mean by obtuse elements but there really isn't that much wrong with the game.

I mean, you say that but you more or less spelled it out in your first paragraph.

To be clear, I'm not saying Morrowind is a bad game, but I am saying that it had its share of bad ideas and clunky mechanics that faded comfortably into the background, but are much more apparent today.

Nearly everything on the NES. Super Mario Bros 3 is one of the only NES games that has held up.

Also, almost everything on the N64. The two Zelda games are still excellent.

I'm not sure I'd consider anything the greatest of all time if it didn't still play well.

DocDelicious posted...

Agree completely with Pokmon. Imo they're unplayable without modding the hell out of them or running a romhack.

lolwut?

Goldeneye is a mess

Metalsonic66 posted...

Goldeneye is a mess

ya, it's definitely a product of the times... same with Perfect Dark. Just TRY playing their remakes!!!?!

Did you know Perfect Dark Zero* was actually decent? Nope, because backlash

*didn't actually play

Shenmue

Oblivion on og consoles with the shitty framedrop in mass combat when you need frames the most. Otherwise it's still great.

Morrowind somehow is still just fine. Except on Xbox with the Dirty Disc Error loading bugs.

Vice City, San Andreas is the minimum. I can't go back to Vice City and I fucking loved that game at the time.

Old MMOs like EverQuest 1. Quality of life and soloing is still ass. Yeah that's right. I come to MMOs to solo. Fuck grouping.

Xenogears. Maybe it's just me. Couldn't get through it again.

OG Doom. The old graphics are just too shit for me. Doom 64 re-release was ok

Planescape: Torment. Loved it to death at the time.

Thief 1. Same as above.

Dragon Warrior 1. I just can't. It's boring. Somehow FF1 isn't.

Straughan posted...

Dragon Warrior 1. I just can't. It's boring. Somehow FF1 isn't.

I still adore DW1, but I get the sentiment

Metal Gear Solid for sure. Still my favorite game ever but that's only because I got to experience it at the time when it was revolutionary in its cinematic approach with a perfect blend of action and stealth with incredible atmosphere and high quality music production.

However gaming has come so far in terms of production values and cinematic experiences that discovering MGS1 today wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive, especially visually and in terms of its primitive gameplay mechanics.

So many of the NES games, unfortunately. I think that LoZ has aged far more poorly than Zelda 2.

A lot of games with terrible load times in general are pretty hard to go back to as well, no matter how much I liked them, tbh.

Every time one of yous says an NES game didn't age well, even though you are possibly right objectively, I'm like ... nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Came in to say Morrowind. It's my favorite in the series, and with MGE-XE and Better Bodies installed it looks just fine, but I understand the combat system is extremely off-putting to people who never got into the game originally. Yet at the same time I think the whole dice roll system lends itself to a great sense of character progression that is totally lacking in Oblivion and Skyrim.

LoZ will never be too old for me. It was the first NES game I ever had. It's just magical. I can play pretty much any Zelda game except for the 3D ones over and over again. The Wind Waker is an exception. I don't get tired of it either. I think my favorite were playing Seasons and Ages back to back connecting the saves. And hearing Nayru's Song.

Remember when it wasn't a canteen?
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/7/6/AAfGAbAADc3k.jpg

Every time I hear the arguments on why the original Legend of Zelda didn't age well, they usually boil down to "The game doesn't hold your hand like modern games do".

It litterally came with an overworld map packed in with the cartridge, and most dungeons guide you to the map and compass just like in newer games. It is a game about exploration yet it still guides you to where you need to go. There are plenty of old NES games that didn't age well (Metroid), Legend of Zelda isn't one of them.

The only thing that didn't age well for LoZ was those tiny ass old controllers.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/8/1/AAfGAbAADc3p.jpg

Need me one of these babies.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/8/2/AAfGAbAADc3q.jpg

Most games even on NES still hold up. A game that doesn't hold up is Big Rigs.

MagicalPrincess posted...

Most games even on NES still hold up. A game that doesn't hold up is Big Rigs.

Big Rigs was never up in the first place

Ocarina of Time

Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario 64
Goldeneye
LoZ: OoT
Doom

Dikitain posted...

Every time I hear the arguments on why the original Legend of Zelda didn't age well, they usually boil down to "The game doesn't hold your hand like modern games do".

It litterally came with an overworld map packed in with the cartridge, and most dungeons guide you to the map and compass just like in newer games. It is a game about exploration yet it still guides you to where you need to go. There are plenty of old NES games that didn't age well (Metroid), Legend of Zelda isn't one of them.

The controls for the original Zelda are terrible. There's a dungeon that is hidden under a random bush you need to burn, with no indication given that you need to do that. Very few people found that on their own.

It hasn't aged well at all.

faramir77 posted...

The controls for the original Zelda are terrible.

How so? Move with the directional pad, B for item, A for sword.

How is that "terrible"?

There's a dungeon that is hidden under a random bush you need to burn, with no indication given that you need to do that. Very few people found that on their own.

You mean the dungeon that is the second to last one after the game has told you that there are secrets hidden under bushes? The one hidden under the singular bush in the forest that blocks your path from going from one end of the screen to the other? The one that I literally found three dungeons before I was supposed to when I was a kid?

It hasn't aged well at all.

Again, I fail to see the argument for this.

agesboy posted...

I legitimately do not understand how people today could think Chrono Trigger is the best game of all time except nostalgia, and I've seen that opinion pretty often here.

I'd say Chrono Trigger holds up, it's just not mind-blowing in the modern world because so many other games have taken inspiration from it and met the bar that it set. It's still a very good game, I just wouldn't put it particularly higher than most similar JRPG's I've played.

Dikitain posted...

How so? Move with the directional pad, B for item, A for sword.

How is that "terrible"?

that's one of the main fixes in the randomizer, being able to press select to toggle between items without going to the menu

Dikitain posted...

How so? Move with the directional pad, B for item, A for sword.

How is that "terrible"?

No diagonal movement and the only sword attack is a stab. It feels extremely unnatural. Even the Game Boy Zeldas put the original to shame in terms of controls.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Goldeneye is a mess

Which is why I wouldn't count as an all-time great anymore, tbh.

Idk if people actually consider the first two in the best of all time category, I normally see that reserved for the third or fourth, but I found the first Breath of Fire games nearly unplayable because of the absolutely insane encounter rate. I still ended up beating both of them, but it so goddamn tedious. And I played at like double speed or something to get through the encounters quicker. Will never play them again.

Count_Drachma posted...

Which is why I wouldn't count as an all-time great anymore, tbh.

Yeah but when I was twelve, it was fun as shit!

Either there's an inherent contradiction in the logical premise of this topic or you're just talking about overhyped games.

If you're making a historical argument for something like Super Mario Bros or Ocarina of Time then you're going to make allowances for industry advances in quality of life stuff like controls. If you're just talking about whatever stupid hype machine flavour of the month that fell off like Fall Guys or something then I don't feel like the "greatest of all time" argument is genuine. Something like Halo being called the greatest of all time by console owners when PC shooters existed is the only thing I can think of that even comes close to fitting the premise exactly as stated but that game is good and important even if the marketing was dumb.

faramir77 posted...

No diagonal movement and the only sword attack is a stab. It feels extremely unnatural. Even the Game Boy Zeldas put the original to shame in terms of controls.

You are confusing terrible for simplistic. Terrible would mean that the controls are antithetical to what the game expects you to do. Simplistic simply means that the game leaves things out that you don't need. A great example would be Mortal Kombat. In 1-3, the controls were simplistic because you had very little control when jumping around with the character, but the game didn't expect you to do much except jump towards or away from your opponent. Using those same controls for a platformer like Anthologies: Sub Zero made them lapse into terrible.

The original Zelda's controls are simplistic, because the game is grid based. No diagonal movement and only stabbing with the sword makes sense because the game doesn't expect you to move diagonally, and makes enemies that don't have flanking tactics. It works in the context of the game you are playing. The later Zelda's added those things so naturally the controls were updated to account for that.

ya, if Link had diagonal movement then the enemies likely would have to, too; which would make the game almost impossibly difficult.

Dikitain posted...

You are confusing terrible for simplistic.

I think it's entirely fair to say old games don't hold up now. They literally don't. They were good for their time, but advancements in technology and gaming culture have pushed them away from the title of Best Game Of All Time. Best Game Of Their Time would be a different discussion, but I don't think saying Twilight Princess is a better game than Zelda 1 would be incorrect.

I don't think most old games hold up today, because few haven't been imitated in a superior way (either through official sequels, fan games, or spiritual successors). Even if I have my favorites among old games, I'll easily concede they're not as good as newer counterparts.

agesboy posted...

but I don't think saying Twilight Princess is a better game than Zelda 1 would be incorrect.

Scale is important when picking a game to play as well. I can one-shot Zelda in an hour, I can do a little bit of field movement and maybe 1 dungeon in an hour in Twilight Princess

agesboy posted...

I think it's entirely fair to say old games don't hold up now. They literally don't. They were good for their time, but advancements in technology and gaming culture have pushed them away from the title of Best Game Of All Time. Best Game Of Their Time would be a different discussion, but I don't think saying Twilight Princess is a better game than Zelda 1 would be incorrect.

I don't think most old games hold up today, because few haven't been imitated in a superior way (either through official sequels, fan games, or spiritual successors). Even if I have my favorites among old games, I'll easily concede they're not as good as newer counterparts.

And I can agree on some games. Metroid is a great example and I think most of the complains that people say about Zelda 1 apply way more accurately to it. The Metroid series is my favorite video game series, and the original Metroid is arguably one of the most important games ever. That said, it is complete crap by today's standard.

What I am saying is Zelda 1 isn't one of those games. It is still enjoyable by today's standards even if there are "better" games out there. It isn't my favorate and it certainly has way less features then later games, but given to someone completely new to the series, I think they would still have fun with it. Sure, Breath of the Wild is a way better game, but I can still play Zelda 1 5 or 10 more times before I do another playthrough of Breath of the Wild. The simplicity and the way it is balanced is the appeal of it. It rewards exploration without being completely obtuse.