Most overrated retro games?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by AFBrat77 (24137 posts) -

Yes guys,Tetris is overrated,in a way.

It's too simplistic...and it's an extremely old game.

Get over it.

GreekGameManiac

Tetris strips everything but great gameplay, which is all you need.....also, because of that it is a timeless classic, while many other games get dated visually etc. revealing over time that the gameplay isn't as fun and addictive as Tetris.

#102 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreekGameManiac"]

Yes guys,Tetris is overrated,in a way.

It's too simplistic...and it's an extremely old game.

Get over it.

AFBrat77

Tetris strips everything but great gameplay, which is all you need.....also, because of that it is a timeless classic, while many other games get dated visually etc. revealing over time that the gameplay isn't as fun and addictive as Tetris.

^^

#103 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

I don't think it makes any sense to refer to retro games as "overrated" today...

By what standards are we judging these games by? By how well they've aged? What matters is not how we think of them today, but what people back then actually thought of those games.

Games like Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time were not considered 'overrated' in the late 90s, but that's a label that was applied to them long after their release.

#104 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

This is a toughie to answer. Most games I played as a kid that are held to freakishly high standards today are, for the most part, deserving of the love they get.

Classics are classics for a reason: They were amazing and groundbreaking for their time and are still fun to play today, even the ones we hate, but everyone has their own opinions on their own personal classics.

If I had to name a game I think is overrated, despite its status as a classic, it would be LttP, but for entirely personal reasons. I wasn't an actual Zelda fan for many years until I bought and beat Twilight Princess (30+ times, I might add), so I always saw older Zelda games for their flaws instead of their strengths (With that being said, I've always thought Ocarina was an amazing game. Majora, on the other hand... has some major flaws, but as the love and hatred for that game seem to be equal, it's not really an overrated classic. It's always been a niche game). LttP I played after I beat Link's Awakening, which is still my favorite Zelda to this day. I was unimpressed with what I saw in LttP. It's not to say it isn't deserving of the love it gets, but when people amount it as one of the greatest Zelda games ever made, I just can't understand the reasonong. Everything it did right was matched and beaten, not many years after the game came out, but literally the next year by a handheld Zelda (again, my opinion). The story was better, the music was much more memorable, the characters were more memorable as you played through the entire game knowing they were all going to dissapear in the end... I just thought it was the better game of the two, but everyone still says LttP is the best 2D Zelda, if not the best Zelda ever made.

But don't get me wrong, I entirely understand why everyone loves it. It was the Zelda that introduced the playstyle we associate with Zelda today, it set up the majority of the lore for the series, and it's still one of the best adventure games on the SNES. It's not that I don't like the game, which I do, I just consider it's handheld cousin to be the better of the 2. It was the first Zelda where you actually became engrossed in the story and characters as Link developed a personal relationship with Marin, and it actually made you kind of depressed when you realized you have to destroy them all in the end.

#105 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

I don't think it makes any sense to refer to retro games as "overrated" today...

By what standards are we judging these games by? By how well they've aged? What matters is not how we think of them today, but what people back then actually thought of those games.

Games like Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time were not considered 'overrated' in the late 90s, but that's a label that was applied to them long after their release.

Jag85


With games like OoT and FF7, I don't think they can be overrated. They were huge and groundbreaking for their time, some of the best games in their day. As time goes on, they'll always be remembered for their impact they had on their genres.

The correct thing to argue over with them, in my opinion, is whether or not you still find them fun and relevant in comparison to their descendants.

#106 Posted by gamenerd15 (4459 posts) -

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

#107 Posted by ItsEvolution (2593 posts) -

and Link's Awakening and Oracle of Ages are both better than ALttP.

turtlethetaffer
Go home, message board poster. You're drunk.
#108 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4728 posts) -

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

and Link's Awakening and Oracle of Ages are both better than ALttP.

ItsEvolution

Go home, message board poster. You're drunk.

Yeah. He forgot Seasons.

#109 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

and Link's Awakening and Oracle of Ages are both better than ALttP.

ItsEvolution

Go home, message board poster. You're drunk.

Hey,it's his opinion.

But i'd like to hear why he thinmks that.

Explain,turtlethefather>?

#110 Posted by dagreenfish (1817 posts) -
FFX, Crisis Core, and Halo. To be fair to Halo, I dislike FPS games.
#111 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I don't think it makes any sense to refer to retro games as "overrated" today...

By what standards are we judging these games by? By how well they've aged? What matters is not how we think of them today, but what people back then actually thought of those games.

Games like Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time were not considered 'overrated' in the late 90s, but that's a label that was applied to them long after their release.

WiiCubeM1


With games like OoT and FF7, I don't think they can be overrated. They were huge and groundbreaking for their time, some of the best games in their day. As time goes on, they'll always be remembered for their impact they had on their genres.

The correct thing to argue over with them, in my opinion, is whether or not you still find them fun and relevant in comparison to their descendants.


True. We can argue over how well these games have aged. If a game has aged badly, that doesn't mean it was overrated to begin with, but it probably just means the game has been imitated so much that the groundbreaking original has lost a lot of its charm... which definitely seems to be the case with games like A Link to the Past or Final Fantasy VII.

We could also argue over whether we found these games overrated back when they first released. Calling them overrated in hindsight wouldn't make sense, but I don't see any problem in calling them overrated if that's what our opinion was originally when they first came out.

#112 Posted by Dudersaper (32949 posts) -

[QUOTE="ItsEvolution"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

and Link's Awakening and Oracle of Ages are both better than ALttP.

GreekGameManiac

Go home, message board poster. You're drunk.

Hey,it's his opinion.

You're the last person I'd expect to say that :P No offense though, just poking fun at you :P
#114 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

I don't think it makes any sense to refer to retro games as "overrated" today...

By what standards are we judging these games by? By how well they've aged? What matters is not how we think of them today, but what people back then actually thought of those games.

Games like Final Fantasy VII and Ocarina of Time were not considered 'overrated' in the late 90s, but that's a label that was applied to them long after their release.

Jag85

It became popular to call games that were/are popular and the games that were initially un-popular but got a cult following thru the time "over-rated".

This extends beyond games too and I think it's simply a reflection of the modern, "internet age" that considers everything that gets some praise "over-rated".

#115 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

gamenerd15

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

#116 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

bultje112

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

Agreed. I'd say that and Morrowind were the 2 games that blew the doors wide open for open-world/sandbox type gameplay.

#117 Posted by Heirren (17331 posts) -
Final Fantasy 7 has design problems, IMO. The movement and scene changes are cumbersome--they're very inconsistent. On second Dpad up moves your character into the scene, the scene has it going left, and then all of a sudden hitting dpad down moves your character on an angle and then yer stuck on a background.
#118 Posted by Legend002 (7213 posts) -

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

#119 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

Final Fantasy 7 has design problems, IMO. The movement and scene changes are cumbersome--they're very inconsistent. On second Dpad up moves your character into the scene, the scene has it going left, and then all of a sudden hitting dpad down moves your character on an angle and then yer stuck on a background. Heirren
That wasn't considered a design problem at the time though. Compared to previous 3D efforts that relied on pre-rendered backdrops, like Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil, FFVII was actually a step up when it came to the controls.

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Legend002

Any particular reasons why you believe "FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming"? Do you mean in terms of industry impact? Or do you simply mean it wasn't the "first" to do the things it popularized?

#120 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

bultje112

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

I wouldn't say there was "nothing like it", as there were plenty of sandbox games before it, but what made GTA 3 unique was its crime-oriented sandbox gaming... When I first played it, the 3D urban sandbox environment felt kind of like Shenmue, except without having to obey any laws... Up until then, I never realized jacking cars or running over pedestrians could be so much fun (at the time).

#121 Posted by Heirren (17331 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]Final Fantasy 7 has design problems, IMO. The movement and scene changes are cumbersome--they're very inconsistent. On second Dpad up moves your character into the scene, the scene has it going left, and then all of a sudden hitting dpad down moves your character on an angle and then yer stuck on a background. Jag85

That wasn't considered a design problem at the time though. Compared to previous 3D efforts that relied on pre-rendered backdrops, like Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil, FFVII was actually a step up when it came to the controls.

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Legend002

Any particular reasons why you believe "FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming"? Do you mean in terms of industry impact? Or do you simply mean it wasn't the "first" to do the things it popularized?

It is a flaw though. People just overlooked it because of hype. So, we have a game with apparent design problems, yet it is hailed by almost everyone--that's what overrated is.
#122 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

It is a flaw though. People just overlooked it because of hype. So, we have a game with apparent design problems, yet it is hailed by almost everyone--that's what overrated is.Heirren

And he scores.

Good post,Heirren.

#123 Posted by DerveCreaves (329 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]Final Fantasy 7 has design problems, IMO. The movement and scene changes are cumbersome--they're very inconsistent. On second Dpad up moves your character into the scene, the scene has it going left, and then all of a sudden hitting dpad down moves your character on an angle and then yer stuck on a background. Jag85

That wasn't considered a design problem at the time though. Compared to previous 3D efforts that relied on pre-rendered backdrops, like Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil, FFVII was actually a step up when it came to the controls.

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Legend002

Any particular reasons why you believe "FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming"? Do you mean in terms of industry impact? Or do you simply mean it wasn't the "first" to do the things it popularized?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Thhe very things tons of games back then got daggered for before and after! In 5 minutes this place became a place of entertainment, out of nowhere.
#124 Posted by Articuno76 (18860 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"] That wasn't considered a design problem at the time though. Compared to previous 3D efforts that relied on pre-rendered backdrops, like Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil, FFVII was actually a step up when it came to the controls. [QUOTE="Legend002"]

Final Fantasy VII. The is good, but to be placed consistently in the top ten of all time is overdoing it. FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming. Of course, many may and will argue against this.

Heirren

Any particular reasons why you believe "FFVII didn't break any new barriers in gaming"? Do you mean in terms of industry impact? Or do you simply mean it wasn't the "first" to do the things it popularized?

It is a flaw though. People just overlooked it because of hype. So, we have a game with apparent design problems, yet it is hailed by almost everyone--that's what overrated is.

Although that design flaw exists, it doesn't drag the game down because it is easily corrected and doesn't impact the game. Now if it were a platformer or action game where the odd bout of erratic movement could get you killed it would be downright gamebreaking. Fortunately for FF7 it is little more than a very minor nuisance.
#125 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

It is a flaw though. People just overlooked it because of hype. So, we have a game with apparent design problems, yet it is hailed by almost everyone--that's what overrated is.Heirren

It's a flaw by today's standards, but not the standards of the late 90s. Standards change over time. Some of the things we would consider flaws today were not considered flaws in the past.

If you want to find a legitimate flaw, you need to compare it to games that came around that same time or before it, not games that came long after it.

Thhe very things tons of games back then got daggered for before and after!DerveCreaves

And what were those "tons of games"? Resident Evil and all those survival horror games with tank controls? Most gamers didn't even consider tank controls to be flaws back in those days. And these were action-oriented games, whereas FFVII was a turn-based RPG where it mattered even less.

#126 Posted by Heirren (17331 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]It is a flaw though. People just overlooked it because of hype. So, we have a game with apparent design problems, yet it is hailed by almost everyone--that's what overrated is.Jag85


It's a flaw by today's standards, but not the standards of the late 90s. Standards change over time. Some of the things we would consider flaws today were not considered flaws in the past.

If you want to find a legitimate flaw, you need to compare it to games that came around that same time or before it, not games that came long after it.

Thhe very things tons of games back then got daggered for before and after!DerveCreaves

And what were those "tons of games"? Resident Evil and all those survival horror games with tank controls? Most gamers didn't even consider tank controls to be flaws back in those days. And these were action-oriented games, whereas FFVII was a turn-based RPG where it mattered even less.

No, the issue is still there. Square spent so much time designing the cgi backgrounds, which angles to use for the game, and the movement was an afterthought. I personally cannot think of an RPG, or any game, that has this problem. Even in Resident Evil, pushing UP always walked the character forward. It's a legitimate flaw, one that even fans like yourself recognize, as you know what I'm talking about.
#127 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Grand Theft Auto 3. I understand why that game is important. No one thought that a game world could be that big. The game lets you do almost anything you want. The actual gameplay in the missions are kind of repetitive.

Jag85

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

I wouldn't say there was "nothing like it", as there were plenty of sandbox games before it, but what made GTA 3 unique was its crime-oriented sandbox gaming... When I first played it, the 3D urban sandbox environment felt kind of like Shenmue, except without having to obey any laws... Up until then, I never realized jacking cars or running over pedestrians could be so much fun (at the time).

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

#128 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

Tank controls are not a design flaw. They're bauce.

#129 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

No, the issue is still there. Square spent so much time designing the cgi backgrounds, which angles to use for the game, and the movement was an afterthought. I personally cannot think of an RPG, or any game, that has this problem. Even in Resident Evil, pushing UP always walked the character forward. It's a legitimate flaw, one that even fans like yourself recognize, as you know what I'm talking about.Heirren
Well, my point is that it's a flaw hardly anyone had an issue with or even cared about back then. That is what I meant about it not being a truly "legitimate" flaw. To me, "legitimate" flaws would be issues that were actually relevant to gamers at the time. For examples, flaws that people (including myself) actually had issues with at the time were things like the unnecessarily lego-looking field character models and the gameplay elements where it took a step backwards from Chrono Trigger (separate battle screens, slower pace, slower loading, more linear, etc.). I honestly don't remember anyone complaining about the way we moved around the characters back then.

#130 Posted by Heirren (17331 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heirren"]No, the issue is still there. Square spent so much time designing the cgi backgrounds, which angles to use for the game, and the movement was an afterthought. I personally cannot think of an RPG, or any game, that has this problem. Even in Resident Evil, pushing UP always walked the character forward. It's a legitimate flaw, one that even fans like yourself recognize, as you know what I'm talking about.Jag85

Well, my point is that it's a flaw hardly anyone had an issue with or even cared about back then. That is what I meant about it not being a truly "legitimate" flaw. To me, "legitimate" flaws would be issues that were actually relevant to gamers at the time. For examples, flaws that people (including myself) actually had issues with at the time were things like the unnecessarily lego-looking field character models and the gameplay elements where it took a step backwards from Chrono Trigger (separate battle screens, slower pace, slower loading, more linear, etc.). I honestly don't remember anyone complaining about the way we moved around the characters back then.

What you just said describes why it's overrated. People were so dumbfounded by the advertising and cgi that they overlooked the problems. At the time of release, myself and a few others, we're definitely in the minority thinking the game wasn't what it was hyped up to be--and that's exactly what overrated is, as what I pointed out is in fact a design flaw.
#131 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

if there's one thing overrated about ff7, it's the cgi. I know it impressed many, but there was no speech in any of it and it was meaningless most of all

#132 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

if there's one thing overrated about ff7, it's the cgi. I know it impressed many, but there was no speech in any of it and it was meaningless most of all

bultje112

Back then it was amazing. The gameplay graphics may be blocky, and the gameplay may be more linear than most RPGs, as many have pointed out. But one thing that FFVII definetly did wow, amaze, and break down doors with is the CGI cutscenes. They were jaw-dropping back then and some of the best ever seen up to that point.

#133 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

I don't agree at all. they added nothing for me. they looked really great yes, but what's the point of seeing a train go or something and games released around same time that did it better like enemy zero, panzer dragoon saga, sakura taisen, those were amazing

#134 Posted by da_illest101 (7523 posts) -

ocarina of time

#135 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]No, the issue is still there. Square spent so much time designing the cgi backgrounds, which angles to use for the game, and the movement was an afterthought. I personally cannot think of an RPG, or any game, that has this problem. Even in Resident Evil, pushing UP always walked the character forward. It's a legitimate flaw, one that even fans like yourself recognize, as you know what I'm talking about.Heirren

Well, my point is that it's a flaw hardly anyone had an issue with or even cared about back then. That is what I meant about it not being a truly "legitimate" flaw. To me, "legitimate" flaws would be issues that were actually relevant to gamers at the time. For examples, flaws that people (including myself) actually had issues with at the time were things like the unnecessarily lego-looking field character models and the gameplay elements where it took a step backwards from Chrono Trigger (separate battle screens, slower pace, slower loading, more linear, etc.). I honestly don't remember anyone complaining about the way we moved around the characters back then.

What you just said describes why it's overrated. People were so dumbfounded by the advertising and cgi that they overlooked the problems. At the time of release, myself and a few others, we're definitely in the minority thinking the game wasn't what it was hyped up to be--and that's exactly what overrated is, as what I pointed out is in fact a design flaw.

Like I said, the control issue you brought up was a flaw that hardly anyone had an issue with until a very long time after it came out. Even the PC port reviews that were more critical of the game never brought that up. That design flaw was fairly common in isometric games back then, so it just wasn't an issue for most gamers back then, regardless of whether or not they thought FFVII was overrated. But otherwise, sure it's a design flaw, but just not one that was relevant at the time... for any isometric or pre-rendered game, let alone FFVII.

Also, I think it's incorrect to say FFVII was overrated simply because of "advertising and cgi". FFVII didn't really become "overrated" until a few years later, when fans started hailing it as the "greatest game of all time" (it even beat Ocarina of Time in a few polls). And the reason why these millions of fans were "overrating" it wasn't because of the "advertising or cgi", but because... you know, they actually thought it was a great game for its time? If so many fans didn't start hailing it as the greatest game ever, we wouldn't be calling the game "overrated" now. It was because of the fans it became "overrated", not because of the "advertising and cgi".

#136 Posted by GreySeal9 (24449 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

in it's day nothing was like it. that game is definitely not overrated imo.

bultje112

I wouldn't say there was "nothing like it", as there were plenty of sandbox games before it, but what made GTA 3 unique was its crime-oriented sandbox gaming... When I first played it, the 3D urban sandbox environment felt kind of like Shenmue, except without having to obey any laws... Up until then, I never realized jacking cars or running over pedestrians could be so much fun (at the time).

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

I'm not sh!tting on your opinion (I'm just curious), but what is it that makes you think Shenume is better than GTA3?

#137 Posted by Cloud_765 (111391 posts) -
Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face.
#138 Posted by Jag85 (4599 posts) -

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

bultje112

That's exactly what I mean. GTA 3 allowed you to go around doing what you want with barely any consequences. It was the fact that you were free to break the rules, that is what I really liked about GTA 3 when I first played it. It was a different experience from Shenmue, but in terms of urban open-world design, I'd actually say they were quite similar, but just with different goals. Shenmue's goal was to create a more realistic urban environment that felt closer to our own real lives, whereas GTA 3's goal was to create an anarchic urban environment that made us feel almost 'divine' in how much freedom we had to break the rules of society. Shenmue felt too real, whereas GTA 3 felt more like a fantasy, hence why the latter succeeded with the masses in a way the former couldn't.

I'm not sh!tting on your opinion (I'm just curious), but what is it that makes you think Shenume is better than GTA3?

GreySeal9

I can't speak for him, but personally, I initially preferred GTA 3, but after getting bored of it, I gave Shenmue another chance and ended up enjoying that a lot more than GTA 3. Despite being a bit more restrictive than GTA 3 (i.e. you can't beat people up, and at times certain places are inaccessible), at the same time Shenmue was also a lot more progressive than GTA 3 in other ways. Shenmue allowed you to knock on any door and enter into most buildings (which you couldn't do in GTA until Vice City), you could open almost any cupboard or drawer (which GTA also didn't allow), it had a lot of mini-games (which GTA didn't have until much later), the NPC's felt like actual people going about their own daily routines (and the realistic graphics helped in that regard), the day-night cycles (with real-time weather effects) and QTE's had an effect on how the story unfolded (although, ultimately, there were only two possible endings), and of course the plot itself had me interested in uncovering the mysteries and progressing the story. Despite both being urban sandbox games, Shenmue felt like a different experience, and one that I ended up finding more preferrable, compared to GTA 3. I'd also have to say Shenmue has aged a lot better than GTA 3, due to GTA 3 being imitated so much, whereas Shenmue still feels fresh because there haven't been that many games like it since.

Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. Cloud_765

I'd say a lot of the 8-bit classics have aged quite badly today, at least compared to most of the 16-bit classics. Still, I wouldn't consider them overrated, but just dated. I can't really say if these games were really overrated for their time unless I was around back then to judge it. But since I was a Sega Master System boy, I never played any of the NES classics until well over a decade later, by which time they felt very dated to me. On the other hand, I can still go back to playing some of the SMS classics and still enjoy them today. Strange.

#139 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

Shenmue II is better than GTA3 but Vice City is better than Shenmue II.

#140 Posted by Heirren (17331 posts) -
Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. Cloud_765
Metroid, Punch Out, Mario------IMO those classics are some of the best in game design to this day. It's just pure gameplay.
#141 Posted by dagreenfish (1817 posts) -
Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. Cloud_765
Actually I just played GBA NES Classics Metroid a few weeks ago. It was great fun and provided more of a challenge than I remembered. Still a great game.
#142 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cloud_765"]Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. dagreenfish
Actually I just played GBA NES Classics Metroid a few weeks ago. It was great fun and provided more of a challenge than I remembered. Still a great game.

2 things would make the game so much better:

1. An in-game map would have been a Godsend.

2. Not having to constantly farm for health. Yeah, you have to do it at times in the other Metroid games, but it seems the original relies on it. There are no recharge stations. The health appears less frequently than in other Metroid games, and no matter how many energy tanks you've collected you always start your game/save with only 30 points of health.

Thankfully there's Metroid: Zero Mission now. Which fixes both of those problems and gives Samus a greater range of control, as well as updated graphics and sound.

#143 Posted by dagreenfish (1817 posts) -

[QUOTE="dagreenfish"][QUOTE="Cloud_765"]Metroid. Try playing it now. I dare you. Tell me it's worth any higher than like an 7.5. I will laugh in your face. Emerald_Warrior

Actually I just played GBA NES Classics Metroid a few weeks ago. It was great fun and provided more of a challenge than I remembered. Still a great game.

2 things would make the game so much better:

1. An in-game map would have been a Godsend.

2. Not having to constantly farm for health. Yeah, you have to do it at times in the other Metroid games, but it seems the original relies on it. There are no recharge stations. The health appears less frequently than in other Metroid games, and no matter how many energy tanks you've collected you always start your game/save with only 30 points of health.

Thankfully there's Metroid: Zero Mission now. Which fixes both of those problems and gives Samus a greater range of control, as well as updated graphics and sound.

I really don't think a map would have enhanced gameplay. Part of the fun was looking for secret rooms and tunnels. Having a map tell you that there is a hidden room past a wall would have made it too easy. I fully agree that grinding for health was unnecessary. I don't see why you couldn't just start with full health or at least one full tank.
#144 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="dagreenfish"] Actually I just played GBA NES Classics Metroid a few weeks ago. It was great fun and provided more of a challenge than I remembered. Still a great game.dagreenfish

2 things would make the game so much better:

1. An in-game map would have been a Godsend.

2. Not having to constantly farm for health. Yeah, you have to do it at times in the other Metroid games, but it seems the original relies on it. There are no recharge stations. The health appears less frequently than in other Metroid games, and no matter how many energy tanks you've collected you always start your game/save with only 30 points of health.

Thankfully there's Metroid: Zero Mission now. Which fixes both of those problems and gives Samus a greater range of control, as well as updated graphics and sound.

I really don't think a map would have enhanced gameplay. Part of the fun was looking for secret rooms and tunnels. Having a map tell you that there is a hidden room past a wall would have made it too easy. I fully agree that grinding for health was unnecessary. I don't see why you couldn't just start with full health or at least one full tank.

Secret paths were still hidden in later Metroids with maps. But the general lay-out was there for you so you didn't get lost.

#145 Posted by bultje112 (1867 posts) -

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"] I wouldn't say there was "nothing like it", as there were plenty of sandbox games before it, but what made GTA 3 unique was its crime-oriented sandbox gaming... When I first played it, the 3D urban sandbox environment felt kind of like Shenmue, except without having to obey any laws... Up until then, I never realized jacking cars or running over pedestrians could be so much fun (at the time).

GreySeal9

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

I'm not sh!tting on your opinion (I'm just curious), but what is it that makes you think Shenume is better than GTA3?

I suggest you read this review of shenmue 2 from me. basically the same counts for shenmue 1(although 2 is better in many ways) the amount of detail gone into a game the size of this had never been done before or done since, for instance EVERY character is different. that's right every person you encounter in the games is unique, you can enter virtuall every place,shop,home! like skyrim for instance. in almost every way it's better than gta 3. story, graphics, gameplay(fighting), there's a lot more things to do in general.

http://www.gamespot.com/shenmue-ii/user-reviews/786680/platform/dreamcast/

pls read, the same counts for shenmue 1, although 2 is bigger

#146 Posted by GreySeal9 (24449 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

shenmue, although a far better game, was totally different. gta 3 was the first 3d open world game where you could do anything you want. stealk cars, kill everyone you want, etc etc

bultje112

I'm not sh!tting on your opinion (I'm just curious), but what is it that makes you think Shenume is better than GTA3?

I suggest you read this review of shenmue 2 from me. basically the same counts for shenmue 1(although 2 is better in many ways) the amount of detail gone into a game the size of this had never been done before or done since, for instance EVERY character is different. that's right every person you encounter in the games is unique, you can enter virtuall every place,shop,home! like skyrim for instance. in almost every way it's better than gta 3. story, graphics, gameplay(fighting), there's a lot more things to do in general.

http://www.gamespot.com/shenmue-ii/user-reviews/786680/platform/dreamcast/

pls read, the same counts for shenmue 1, although 2 is bigger

Wow. You really love Shenmue. Nice to see so much passion for a game.

I agree that Shenmue 2 was fvcking awesome tho, and Shenmue 1 was also awesome but to a lesser extent. I thought that GTA 3 was funner to play, but I do agree that Shenmue has it easily trumped as far as atmosphere and story is concerned. The only thing I don't like about Shenmue, besides some awkward voice acting, is the controls when you're walking around (they are fine during fights); Ryu moves like a fvcking tank. Tho to be fair, GTA 3's on foot controls are not that hot either.

#147 Posted by Articuno76 (18860 posts) -
Resident Evil 2. I was going to mention 1 and 2, but I think when RE1 came out the survival horror genre was still quite new to consoles so it was quite scary. Now graphics and sound fidelity age, but what those graphics and sounds can evoke can stay true for decades. It isn't how these factors have aged that pull RE2 down, it's the voice acting: bad acting is bad, regardless of what decade or what technology is available. The effect this has on RE2 is devastatingly counter to what the game is about. RE2 I consider overated precisely because so many reviewers felt the game was 'scary'. Even at the time we knew the voice acting and writing was comically bad. The last thing you want when trying to make a game scary is cutscenes where the player has to control their urge to laugh out hysterically. And yet we all played along. Looking back on it now it is even harder to look past. The performance is so bad it actually undermines the 'horror' aspect for which the game is often praised. For that I consider it overated.
#148 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

Resident Evil 2. I was going to mention 1 and 2, but I think when RE1 came out the survival horror genre was still quite new to consoles so it was quite scary. Now graphics and sound fidelity age, but what those graphics and sounds can evoke can stay true for decades. It isn't how these factors have aged that pull RE2 down, it's the voice acting: bad acting is bad, regardless of what decade or what technology is available. The effect this has on RE2 is devastatingly counter to what the game is about. RE2 I consider overated precisely because so many reviewers felt the game was 'scary'. Even at the time we knew the voice acting and writing was comically bad. The last thing you want when trying to make a game scary is cutscenes where the player has to control their urge to laugh out hysterically. And yet we all played along. Looking back on it now it is even harder to look past. The performance is so bad it actually undermines the 'horror' aspect for which the game is often praised. For that I consider it overated.Articuno76

You're gonna fault RE2 for it's voice-acting over RE1? Neither of them were good, by any means, but RE1 was just on a entirely different level. It's like they were trying their hardest to be campy.

#149 Posted by Articuno76 (18860 posts) -

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]Resident Evil 2. I was going to mention 1 and 2, but I think when RE1 came out the survival horror genre was still quite new to consoles so it was quite scary. Now graphics and sound fidelity age, but what those graphics and sounds can evoke can stay true for decades. It isn't how these factors have aged that pull RE2 down, it's the voice acting: bad acting is bad, regardless of what decade or what technology is available. The effect this has on RE2 is devastatingly counter to what the game is about. RE2 I consider overated precisely because so many reviewers felt the game was 'scary'. Even at the time we knew the voice acting and writing was comically bad. The last thing you want when trying to make a game scary is cutscenes where the player has to control their urge to laugh out hysterically. And yet we all played along. Looking back on it now it is even harder to look past. The performance is so bad it actually undermines the 'horror' aspect for which the game is often praised. For that I consider it overated.Emerald_Warrior

You're gonna fault RE2 for it's voice-acting over RE1? Neither of them were good, by any means, but RE1 was just on a entirely different level. It's like they were trying their hardest to be campy.

Agreed. Those live-action segments were laughably bad. I feel though that at the time the concept of that brand of survival horror was new enough that the one could still buy into the horror aspect of the game (though in retrospect, yeah, it does seem crazy). RE2 was, however, even by contemporary standards, comically badly acted and didn't have any other original aspects to really sell you on the horror side of things.
#150 Posted by Emerald_Warrior (6581 posts) -

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]Resident Evil 2. I was going to mention 1 and 2, but I think when RE1 came out the survival horror genre was still quite new to consoles so it was quite scary. Now graphics and sound fidelity age, but what those graphics and sounds can evoke can stay true for decades. It isn't how these factors have aged that pull RE2 down, it's the voice acting: bad acting is bad, regardless of what decade or what technology is available. The effect this has on RE2 is devastatingly counter to what the game is about. RE2 I consider overated precisely because so many reviewers felt the game was 'scary'. Even at the time we knew the voice acting and writing was comically bad. The last thing you want when trying to make a game scary is cutscenes where the player has to control their urge to laugh out hysterically. And yet we all played along. Looking back on it now it is even harder to look past. The performance is so bad it actually undermines the 'horror' aspect for which the game is often praised. For that I consider it overated.Articuno76

You're gonna fault RE2 for it's voice-acting over RE1? Neither of them were good, by any means, but RE1 was just on a entirely different level. It's like they were trying their hardest to be campy.

Agreed. Those live-action segments were laughably bad. I feel though that at the time the concept of that brand of survival horror was new enough that the one could still buy into the horror aspect of the game (though in retrospect, yeah, it does seem crazy). RE2 was, however, even by contemporary standards, comically badly acted and didn't have any other original aspects to really sell you on the horror side of things.

It was only the 2nd game in the series, and survival-horror was a brand-new genre then. It didn't have to be original over the 1st game, because it was the standard-setter back then. All it had to do was be bigger, longer, and better polished. Check, check, and check.