|
Post by James Fabiano on Apr 16, 2024 10:21:27 GMT -5
Here's one: Pac-Man 2600.
Yes by now we know what a letdown it was. But how many of us still played and enjoyed it back in the day?
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on Apr 16, 2024 12:31:10 GMT -5
Here's one: Pac-Man 2600. Yes by now we know what a letdown it was. But how many of us still played and enjoyed it back in the day? On that note, the first TMNT game for NES.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Apr 16, 2024 12:38:33 GMT -5
On that note, the first TMNT game for NES. That one's a two-fer. The Internet: "The first NES Turtles game sucked. They should have ported the arcade game first." Reality: The NES game is a pretty ambitious and well-executed game, albeit a punishing one, and pre-dated the arcade game by several months.
|
|
|
Post by FALLOUT Goldashausen #BLM on Apr 16, 2024 15:56:50 GMT -5
I think the current discourse around Starfield might be a part of this, just in an extremely condensed timeframe.
I remember it got fairly positive reviews in its first few days, and then the discourse fell off a cliff and it's now widely considered a letdown on the level of pre-expansion Cyberpunk 2077 or No Man's Sky (despite not having as many game-breaking bugs as either had at launch, at least on some level).
After playing over 50 hours and only scratching the surface of the main quest...yeah, it's not exactly legendary but it also isn't a massive failure. I appreciate that it's trying to be its own thing, but it feels like it's Daggerfall in Space, warts and all.
I enjoyed its combat way more than Skyrim (which I feel is really clunky now, magic excluded) and Fallout 4 (which isn't the best in terms of gunplay) but I haven't even touched its crafting. Fallout 4's loot/recycling/junk system truly spoiled me and there's far too much junk in Starfield that you can't really do anything with.
So, yeah, tl;dr, not the best but not an all-time failure. And each patch seems to add more interesting quality-of-life features, so I'm willing to play the long game here.
EDIT: I agree with everyone else online who expects a working, fully-featured game on launch day, especially with the delays Starfield received. On the other hand, I also acknowledge that patches are a reality of gaming now, and that games that improve significantly after updates can also be a good thing. I don't know. Maybe I'm just not as upset over some of this stuff as I used to be.
|
|
|
Post by Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite on Apr 16, 2024 16:39:54 GMT -5
Here's one: Pac-Man 2600. Yes by now we know what a letdown it was. But how many of us still played and enjoyed it back in the day? On that note, the first TMNT game for NES. I remember at the time being let down that it wasn't the same game that was in the arcade and overall just way too hard.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,070
|
Post by CMWaters on Apr 16, 2024 16:55:11 GMT -5
Here's one: Pac-Man 2600. Yes by now we know what a letdown it was. But how many of us still played and enjoyed it back in the day? Honestly...it was my first introduction to Pac-Man and I was surprised when I later learned how different other versions are.
|
|
|
Post by ANuclearError on Apr 16, 2024 17:03:26 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand a lot of these examples. Like, Superman IV was reviled (and the production was famously a huge disaster) long before the internet was commonly used. And people who grew up with the original Scooby Doo always hated Scrappy, even if younger kids at the time tolerated or liked Scrappy. The internet doesn't really seem relevant. Do we know that for sure though? Or did the net bring it to light? I can see people who actually became young adults/adults since 1969 feeling like that, if that's what you meant. People who were a bit younger? I would chalk that up to denial. Kinda like if you watched wrestling as a pre teen and insist you were always waiting for Macho Man to beat Hogan. Wikipedia has references to reviews at the time of its release, and they were pretty scathing.
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Apr 16, 2024 17:19:16 GMT -5
Do we know that for sure though? Or did the net bring it to light? I can see people who actually became young adults/adults since 1969 feeling like that, if that's what you meant. People who were a bit younger? I would chalk that up to denial. Kinda like if you watched wrestling as a pre teen and insist you were always waiting for Macho Man to beat Hogan. Wikipedia has references to reviews at the time of its release, and they were pretty scathing.
Aha. Well by this time, the media seemed to mostly look down on 80s SatAM fare in general, from the condescending pieces I saw on Newspapers.com.
|
|
|
Post by ANuclearError on Apr 16, 2024 18:01:02 GMT -5
Wikipedia has references to reviews at the time of its release, and they were pretty scathing.
Aha. Well by this time, the media seemed to mostly look down on 80s SatAM fare in general, from the condescending pieces I saw on Newspapers.com. To be fair, I'm starting to realise that you may have been talking about scrappy rather than Superman IV when replying to the original post...
|
|
Burst
El Dandy
*inarticulate squawking*
Posts: 8,584
|
Post by Burst on Apr 16, 2024 18:01:54 GMT -5
[/div][/quote]Aha. Well by this time, the media seemed to mostly look down on 80s SatAM fare in general, from the condescending pieces I saw on Newspapers.com. [/quote] As a bit of a tangent, it's kind of amazing how downright patronizing a lot of review articles were for stuff that's looked upon fondly these days. Search for reviews of Star Wars circa 1977 and you'll find plenty of utterly dismissive reviews. Yes, ANH is by no means a perfect movie and there's always a nostalgia factor in play nowadays, but some of the reviews read like they were never intending on giving it a chance anyway... though that's relatively par for the level of contempt that "genre" of any kind got in that time period.
|
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 84,670
Member is Online
|
Post by chrom on Apr 16, 2024 18:14:01 GMT -5
[/div][/quote]Aha. Well by this time, the media seemed to mostly look down on 80s SatAM fare in general, from the condescending pieces I saw on Newspapers.com. [/quote] As a bit of a tangent, it's kind of amazing how downright patronizing a lot of review articles were for stuff that's looked upon fondly these days. Search for reviews of Star Wars circa 1977 and you'll find plenty of utterly dismissive reviews. Yes, ANH is by no means a perfect movie and there's always a nostalgia factor in play nowadays, but some of the reviews read like they were never intending on giving it a chance anyway... though that's relatively par for the level of contempt that "genre" of any kind got in that time period. [/quote][/div]
Nobody gave Star Wars a chance, not even Lucas.
Hamill himself was admitting he hoped at most it would make its money back and be popular with stoners.
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Apr 16, 2024 18:20:24 GMT -5
Well by this time, the media seemed to mostly look down on 80s SatAM fare in general, from the condescending pieces I saw on Newspapers.com. As a bit of a tangent, it's kind of amazing how downright patronizing a lot of review articles were for stuff that's looked upon fondly these days. Search for reviews of Star Wars circa 1977 and you'll find plenty of utterly dismissive reviews. Yes, ANH is by no means a perfect movie and there's always a nostalgia factor in play nowadays, but some of the reviews read like they were never intending on giving it a chance anyway... though that's relatively par for the level of contempt that "genre" of any kind got in that time period. It's funny in that narrow period after initial critics were outright dismissive of ANH and before sections of popular culture greatly elevated the series to being a modern mythology, that Lucas himself probably had the fairest assessment of Star Wars circa a 1981 interview: “The underrating and overrating are the same kind of reactions. Two people who are saying ‘It's nothing; it’s junk food for the mind,’ are reacting against the people who are saying ‘This is the greatest thing since popcorn!’ Both of them are wrong. It’s just a movie. You watch it and you enjoy it… It’s just that people tend to take those things so seriously and get carried away when they should realize that it’s just something you enjoy-like a sunset. You don’t have to worry about the significance of it. You just say, ‘Hey, that was great."
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,920
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 16, 2024 18:22:00 GMT -5
Judging by the Internet no human being has ever ate at McDonald’s since 1967 or ever watched The Big Bang Theory voluntarily. I did both over the weekend. Please don't tell Internet. I stopped eating at McDonald’s back in 1992!!! I don’t know a single human who eats there!!! Especially while watching BBT!! You could make a better burger and sitcom at home!!!!
|
|
legendkiller1985
Don Corleone
If I'm going to have a past, I'd prefer it to be multiple choice
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by legendkiller1985 on Apr 16, 2024 20:58:07 GMT -5
On that note, the first TMNT game for NES. That one's a two-fer. The Internet: "The first NES Turtles game sucked. They should have ported the arcade game first." Reality: The NES game is a pretty ambitious and well-executed game, albeit a punishing one, and pre-dated the arcade game by several months. AVGN kinda started a lot of that discourse since he was really the first one in YouTube's early days to bring this opinion.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Apr 17, 2024 9:39:38 GMT -5
Rocky V is the worst film in the franchise, but not the devil spawn the internet makes it out to be. Given how ridiculous IV was a back to basics approach was needed and I like the dynamic of Rocky becoming so fixated with his adopted son (Gunn) he abandons his real son. I got some flack here about 15/16 years ago for saying I thought V was better. I haven't watched either in forever but I recall V being a more realistic and leveled movie on terms of the look and feel and it was more akin to Rocky and Rocky II whereas Rocky IV got absurd at times with the robot and Cold War propaganda throughout it and almost comes across like a whole different entry in the series. Yet... Rocky IV has a more compelling villain in Ivan Drago and his crew. Rocky IV also has a better soundtrack, more memorable scenes, and had a larger feel to it. Rocky V is better acted and more realistic and feels like a Rocky film but the writing of it at places and its lack of continuity as well as a weaker villain and ending that doesn't add anything to the story aside Rocky beating up people who were mean to him, makes me see why people don't like it and see it as the worst. Truthfully Rocky V could have been a great movie if it took more time to tell the story. You could have done a recap in the first 30 minutes where Rocky comes back to America, has a health issue that doctors tell him to retire from boxing. I would then fast forward to 5 years later proper where Rocky hasn't returned to the ring. His lack of life skills and Adrian's own health problems start takinga toll on their finances as well as trying to provide for his son causes them to be in rough shape. Perhaps the George Washington Duke character offers Rocky to be the face of his new boxing camp, forcing Rocky to sign over his image and likeness to Duke in exchange for a salary with being a trainer and face of his camp. Rocky trains up Tommy Gunn and Tommy ends up World Champion when Rocky is suddenly terminated and doesn't receive the money promised to him. In response Rocky challenges Tommy and finds an old friend who is a doctor that reluctantly clears him. Rocky takes the ring and wins the match but is hospitalized after, nearly losing his life. Rocky is then offered by Apollo's old manager Duke to partner in his boxing business and help Rocky out , with a message of "family always has each other's backs". Rocky beating up Duke and Tommy just felt pointless. He doesn't turn his life around and now has pending charges. Goofy ending.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 17, 2024 11:20:08 GMT -5
I just want to note that I saw the Rocky movies for the first time in the early 2000s and I always liked V more than IV.
IV is a fine movie but it's barely a Rocky movie. Completely disconnected from any kind of reality, and the score is all synths instead of the strings of the original movies. IV might even be a better movie than V, but V is a better Rocky movie than IV. Plus a former heavyweight champion going completely broke is depressingly true to life.
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 13,960
|
Post by salz4life on Apr 17, 2024 13:04:20 GMT -5
I think the current discourse around Starfield might be a part of this, just in an extremely condensed timeframe. I remember it got fairly positive reviews in its first few days, and then the discourse fell off a cliff and it's now widely considered a letdown on the level of pre-expansion Cyberpunk 2077 or No Man's Sky (despite not having as many game-breaking bugs as either had at launch, at least on some level). After playing over 50 hours and only scratching the surface of the main quest...yeah, it's not exactly legendary but it also isn't a massive failure. I appreciate that it's trying to be its own thing, but it feels like it's Daggerfall in Space, warts and all. I enjoyed its combat way more than Skyrim (which I feel is really clunky now, magic excluded) and Fallout 4 (which isn't the best in terms of gunplay) but I haven't even touched its crafting. Fallout 4's loot/recycling/junk system truly spoiled me and there's far too much junk in Starfield that you can't really do anything with. So, yeah, tl;dr, not the best but not an all-time failure. And each patch seems to add more interesting quality-of-life features, so I'm willing to play the long game here. EDIT: I agree with everyone else online who expects a working, fully-featured game on launch day, especially with the delays Starfield received. On the other hand, I also acknowledge that patches are a reality of gaming now, and that games that improve significantly after updates can also be a good thing. I don't know. Maybe I'm just not as upset over some of this stuff as I used to be.I'm still enjoying Starfield. I understand why people don't like it, but I still like it. It's not the groundbreaking game that it seemed to want to be, but I still think it's a solid game.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Apr 17, 2024 13:15:03 GMT -5
Nickelback are shit and the worst band ever Nah, Nickelback are a decent band. Not great, but decent. They have a few songs on my Spotify playlist. I think much of the hate comes from the fact Chad Kroeger just looked an absolute chode. Honestly, they have a few real bangers in their discography. They also have some by-the-numbers stuff as well. The bad isn’t that terrible and the good is actually good. Besides, how can I spend time hating on Nickelback when Imagine Dragons are releasing so much garbage that wind up being hits? No, I don’t like Imagine Dragons. Some of their early stuff was decent enough, but I’ve found their music to be awful for years now. Yes, I realize a lot of people disagree with me (including my wife). Honestly, I don’t know or care what the internet thinks of them.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Apr 17, 2024 13:23:52 GMT -5
Here's one: Pac-Man 2600. Yes by now we know what a letdown it was. But how many of us still played and enjoyed it back in the day? I hated it from day 1. Pac-Man was a fast-paced game but not the 2600 version. Sadly, the 2600 was capable of running closer to the original as shown by home brews, but they didn’t dedicate enough resources to the game. I didn’t mind the downgrade in graphics, but I could not abide messing up the gameplay. Even when graphically downgrading many other arcade games, the 2600 still could decently mimic their game play. That was not what happened with Pac-Man.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,491
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Apr 17, 2024 13:36:39 GMT -5
'Friends' was never funny and was never as popular as you think. (You can also Replace Friends with Big Bang Theory)
|
|