Games that just don't hold up

[Mozenrath]

Sims 1 and 2.

After playing Sims 3, you just can't go back.

[Deleted]

Jan 19, 2013 1:58:38 GMT -5 AFN: Judge Shred said:

I think Ratchet and Clank does hold up. I have been playing it recently and while the series evolved a ton, the game is still perfectly playable and fun.

I disagree. Your hitbox is twice the size of your character, quick select is agonizingly slow so unless you feel like pausing every couple of seconds to change weapons the fighting is devoid of any fluidity.

The last level is especially bad. It's so overflowing with guys who fly around and are impossible to hit with most of your weapons that you have to stand around in the back of the map and snipe them with the rocket launcher. Which doesn't feel even slightly rewarding, just cheesy.

And then there's the last boss fight which is a joke because of how long it is and how ammo packs can take forever to show up. Then there's the blue orb or whatever that can hit you even if it misses you completely.

Having no aiming mechanism for third person view is really bad. Metal Gear Solid wasn't a shoot-em-up and Konami at least had the foresight to put laser scopes on the guns so you had an idea of where you were shooting.

[Confused Mark Wahlberg]

MK1, sheesh.

I wonder how I ever put even one quarter in that dog of a game.

[agent817]

Dead To Rights. I remember doing a playthrough of it in recent memory but I think it was in 2008 or 2009. I remember loving that game when I was 16 and all the things like disarming enemies, diving and shooting, throwing canisters and blowing them up in enemies' faces, human shields and the fact that you can have your dog attack an enemy. Also, I liked how there were mini-games like pushing buttons to have a stripper distract security guards, disarming bombs, unlocking doors, etc.

What doesn't hold up about it are the graphics and the fact that it's the same damn thing throughout the game. Shooting everyone, hand-to-hand sequences with a lot of enemies on screen and it got repetitive.

While there are some things that I still like about this game, this game totally screams early 2000s and I know I have played a lot of third person action games in my lifetime and while I liked them, some just don't age well.

[The Ichi]

The topdown GTA games. Maybe that's just me though.

[Jedi-El of Tomorrow]

Dead Rising - I love the game, but it doesn't hold up that well after playing Dead Rising 2. 2 had a faster protagonist, the ability to combine weapons, smarter survivor a.i., the outfits actually did something, and money > photography. Dead Rising did have the small chainsaw, the mega-buster, and the True Eye Cult (I loved killing those guys), but there was terrible survivor a.i., zombies leaping across the screen to get you, and there was no reason to change outfits because they didn't do a f***ing thing.

[eDemento2099]

Funny thing is, I never do see much argument of "Goldeneye/Perfect Dark is not that good" once you take the "controls" argument out of the equation.

And yeah, I do remember having to doctor the controls for the TimeSplitters games, but I think TimeSplitters; Future Perfect is better than ANY FPS released this generation.

I agree that TimeSplitters 2 would be a great game if not for the awful control scheme. FPS games are generally easy to control because they all feature identical control schemes. That is not the case with TS2. People who say "You just need to remember how the controls work" are making an excuse for the poor control system that makes playing the game a very contrived and cumbersome experience.

TimeSplitters: Future Perfect was awesome because it finally gave the series a proper control scheme. What's more, the single player campaign had a solid (albeit silly) story connecting all the levels.

If you assume I dislike TS2 because I prefer modern FPS games like Halo and Call of Duty, you're wrong. Very wrong. I dislike regenerating health, and I dislike being limited to using only two weapons at a time. TS2's controls were a crippling flaw that TS: Future Perfect fixed. Unfortunately, Future Perfect's single-player levels weren't as nice as the ones in TS2, but FP is still an excellent game.

[CMWaters]

Though I haven't ever played it, I'm sure the first Smackdown game wouldn't hold up anymore.

[Starshine]

Resident Evil 6.

It's not even a year old...

[Malcolm]

Jan 19, 2013 21:50:24 GMT -5 eDemento2099 said:

Funny thing is, I never do see much argument of "Goldeneye/Perfect Dark is not that good" once you take the "controls" argument out of the equation.

And yeah, I do remember having to doctor the controls for the TimeSplitters games, but I think TimeSplitters; Future Perfect is better than ANY FPS released this generation.

I agree that TimeSplitters 2 would be a great game if not for the awful control scheme. FPS games are generally easy to control because they all feature identical control schemes. That is not the case with TS2. People who say "You just need to remember how the controls work" are making an excuse for the poor control system that makes playing the game a very contrived and cumbersome experience.

TimeSplitters: Future Perfect was awesome because it finally gave the series a proper control scheme. What's more, the single player campaign had a solid (albeit silly) story connecting all the levels.

If you assume I dislike TS2 because I prefer modern FPS games like Halo and Call of Duty, you're wrong. Very wrong. I dislike regenerating health, and I dislike being limited to using only two weapons at a time. TS2's controls were a crippling flaw that TS: Future Perfect fixed. Unfortunately, Future Perfect's single-player levels weren't as nice as the ones in TS2, but FP is still an excellent game.

I honestly had no problem playing TimeSplitters 2 and I mostly played modern FPS games. I don't see what's wrong with it's control scheme even compared to modern FPS games. It's easy to me.

[Hurbster]

Jan 19, 2013 14:14:15 GMT -5 Citizen Grimm said:

Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.

Its still a fine game and all, but after playing Skyrim.....just no.

It's fine if you mod the crap out of it. Otherwise it's (shudders) those symmetrical faces that haunt my nightmares.

[Legion]

Jan 19, 2013 22:10:20 GMT -5 Malcolm said:

Jan 19, 2013 21:50:24 GMT -5 eDemento2099 said:

I agree that TimeSplitters 2 would be a great game if not for the awful control scheme. FPS games are generally easy to control because they all feature identical control schemes. That is not the case with TS2. People who say "You just need to remember how the controls work" are making an excuse for the poor control system that makes playing the game a very contrived and cumbersome experience.

TimeSplitters: Future Perfect was awesome because it finally gave the series a proper control scheme. What's more, the single player campaign had a solid (albeit silly) story connecting all the levels.

If you assume I dislike TS2 because I prefer modern FPS games like Halo and Call of Duty, you're wrong. Very wrong. I dislike regenerating health, and I dislike being limited to using only two weapons at a time. TS2's controls were a crippling flaw that TS: Future Perfect fixed. Unfortunately, Future Perfect's single-player levels weren't as nice as the ones in TS2, but FP is still an excellent game.

I honestly had no problem playing TimeSplitters 2 and I mostly played modern FPS games. I don't see what's wrong with it's control scheme even compared to modern FPS games. It's easy to me.

This.

If anything, it's simpler.

I've never got the dislike beyond the camera being a tad slow

[xCompackx]

Honestly, Metal Gear Solid doesn't hold up. It's still a good story, but it really isn't that fun to play these days.

[DZ: WF Legacy]

Altered Beast is slow and clunky. Fun with a person who shares nostalgia, a snore otherwise. Golden Axe is even worse. New Super Mario Bros. on DS is incredibly boring. GTA IV isn't a bad game, but it has far too many technical issues to warrant all the 10/10 scores it received.

A lot of games in that early 3D era are both crippled by the limitations of gameplay as well as graphics. Those ones have aged far less gracefully than the games proceeding it. Not all of them, though. I still really love the original MGS and Silent Hill. MGS has a great story/art direction that helps it around the rough edges, and Silent Hill looks ugly as hell at times, but in a weird way, it helps the rustic atmosphere.

[Deleted]

Jan 19, 2013 21:50:24 GMT -5 eDemento2099 said:

Funny thing is, I never do see much argument of "Goldeneye/Perfect Dark is not that good" once you take the "controls" argument out of the equation.

And yeah, I do remember having to doctor the controls for the TimeSplitters games, but I think TimeSplitters; Future Perfect is better than ANY FPS released this generation.

I agree that TimeSplitters 2 would be a great game if not for the awful control scheme. FPS games are generally easy to control because they all feature identical control schemes. That is not the case with TS2. People who say "You just need to remember how the controls work" are making an excuse for the poor control system that makes playing the game a very contrived and cumbersome experience.

TimeSplitters: Future Perfect was awesome because it finally gave the series a proper control scheme. What's more, the single player campaign had a solid (albeit silly) story connecting all the levels.

If you assume I dislike TS2 because I prefer modern FPS games like Halo and Call of Duty, you're wrong. Very wrong. I dislike regenerating health, and I dislike being limited to using only two weapons at a time. TS2's controls were a crippling flaw that TS: Future Perfect fixed. Unfortunately, Future Perfect's single-player levels weren't as nice as the ones in TS2, but FP is still an excellent game.

No way man, that's not what I meant at all. Notice i mentioned FP specifically. 2 was good but needed work for sure. I didn't think the controls were terrible, but again, I had to adjust a LOT to get them to a level I could deal with. Future Perfect was all set pretty much from the minute I started it up. And I never thought much for 2's story, which other than the opening dam level (which wouldn't be so memorable if it wasn't a sendoff to Goldeneye) I can't recall a single level from it...as opposed to being able to recall pretty much all of Future Perfect.

[Mozenrath]

Jan 19, 2013 23:15:16 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

Honestly, Metal Gear Solid doesn't hold up. It's still a good story, but it really isn't that fun to play these days.

Twin Snakes is still fun, though I do think they went overboard with the FMVs.

[Deleted]

Resident Evil and Tomb Raider Games on the PS haven't age well because the control make it almost unplayable.

[bob]

NBA Jam

[celticjobber]

Jan 20, 2013 1:48:03 GMT -5 bob said:

NBA Jam

I disagree. I just played NBA Jam on Genesis yesterday, it's still my favorite sports game of all time (actually, it's the only sports game I've ever enjoyed).

[xCompackx]

Jan 20, 2013 1:27:08 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Jan 19, 2013 23:15:16 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

Honestly, Metal Gear Solid doesn't hold up. It's still a good story, but it really isn't that fun to play these days.

Twin Snakes is still fun, though I do think they went overboard with the FMVs.

Oh definitely. Twin Snakes is a lot of fun, but the original PSX version is a rough experience.