996

Ignoring the lack of updates if the game is buggy, games back then were also more focused on quality and make gamers replay the game with unlockable features based on skills, not money. I can't count the number of times I played Metal Gear Solid games over and over to unlock new features playing the hardest difficulty and with handicap features, and also to find Easter eggs. Speaking of Easter eggs, you'd lose a number of hours exploring every nook and cranny finding them!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] DingoBilly@lemmy.world 95 points 9 months ago

Games were definitely buggy and I honestly think people forget how much better the quality is nowadays.

I also think there is something to it just being the 90s or so and not having much choice. If you only have one game to play then of course you're going to replay it to death. If I have a steam library of 1000 games then I'm much less likely to.

A lot of this is just nostalgia for the past and the environment as opposed to games being any better.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 40 points 9 months ago

There's also the SNL effect. Everyone remembers the great games like Mario. Nobody remembers World Games.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 70 points 9 months ago

They didn't need updates because they gave you the whole game, (usually) more-or-less bug-free, the first time!

[-] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago

That's some survivorship bias shit right here. I can't tell you how many shitty, buggy games I played in the days of early console and PC gaming. Even games that were revolutionary and objectively good games sometimes had game-breaking bugs, but often it was harder to find them without the internet.

Plus, don't you remember expansion packs? That was the original form of DLC.

[-] Don_alForno@feddit.de 15 points 9 months ago

There are different kind of DLC, and the kind that's similar to actual expansion packs is usually not criticized (or not by most).

[-] noobnarski@feddit.de 11 points 9 months ago

Yeah, if a DLC isnt just content taken out of the main game (in a way that makes the main game worse) and is reasonably priced for the amount of content it contains, then it is a good way for developers to get paid for continuing development of a game after launch when it was already finished at launch.

The Witcher 3 DLCs for example were pretty good.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

Console:

Except for when they did not, which was actually somewhat common.

But it also became quickly known, respectively stores stopped stocking buggy games. So in return, larger publishers tried their utmost to ensure that games could not have bigger bugs remaining on launch (Nintendo Seal of Excellence for example was one such certification).

But make no mistake, tons of games you fondly remember from your childhood were bugged to hell and back. You just didn't notice, and the bigger CTDs and stuff did not exist as much, yes.

PC:

It was just flat-out worse back then. But we also thought about it the reverse way: It wasn't "Oh this doesn't work on my specific configuration, wtf?!" but "Oh damn I forgot I need a specific VESA card for this, not just any. Gonna take this to my friend who has that card to play it.".

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 9 months ago

Counterpoint: budget re-releases of games (e.g. 'Platinum' on PlayStation) were often an opportunity to fix bugs, or sometimes even add new features. A few examples:

  • Space Invaders 1500 was a re-release of Space Invaders 2000, with a few new game modes.
  • Spyro: Year of the Dragon's 'Greatest Hits' release added a bunch of music that was missing in the original release.
  • Ridge Racer Type 4 came with a disc containing an updated version of the first Ridge Racer, which ran at 60fps.
  • Super Mario 64's 'Shindou Edition' added rumble pak support, as well as fixing a whole bunch of bugs (famously, the backwards long jump).

Those are just off the top of my head. I'm certain there are more re-releases that represent the true 'final' version of a game.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 56 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

games back then were also more focused on quality

This is selection bias. You remember Metal Gear Solid, but do you remember Iron & Blood: Warriors of Ravenloft? Do you remember Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero? Bubsy 3D? The million-and-one licensed games that were churned out like baseball cards back then?

and make gamers replay the game with unlockable features based on skills, not money

If we're going to say that a full-price game today costs $70, Metal Gear Solid would have cost the equivalent of $95. Not only that, but that was very much the Blockbuster and strategy guide era. Games would often have one of their best levels up front so that you can see what makes the game good, but then level 2 or 3 would hit a huge difficulty spike...just enough to make you have to rent the game multiple times or to cave in and buy it when you couldn't beat it in a weekend. Or you'd have something like Final Fantasy VII, which I just finished for the first time recently, and let me tell you: games that big were designed to sell strategy guides (or hint hotlines) as a revenue stream. There would be some esoteric riddle, or some obscure corner of the map that you need to happen upon in order to progress the game forward. The business model always, at every step of the medium's history, affects the game design.

"Value" is going to be a very subjective thing, but for better or worse, the equivalent game today is far more packed full of "stuff" to do, even when you discount the ones that get there just by adding grinding. There are things I miss about the old days too, but try to keep it in perspective.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

“Value” is going to be a very subjective thing, but for better or worse, the equivalent game today is far more packed full of “stuff” to do, even when you discount the ones that get there just by adding grinding. There are things I miss about the old days too, but try to keep it in perspective.

Exactly this.

Games back then were pricier - once you account for inflation.
Games back then did expect you to pay extra - in fact quite a few were deliberately designed to have unsolvable moments without either having the official strategy guide or at least a friend who had it who could tell you.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 56 points 9 months ago

This is just nostalgia.

Case in point, you can still play all of these old games. If you are willing to pirate, you can get access to thousands of games, most you never even played before, for free. You never have to pay for another game as long as you live and a still be playing new games from this era of "better" games.

I've done this myself. Played for like a month, and then for bored. And basically noone does that. I have the Nintendo switch access to old nes games. My kids never touch it. No one can really say because there is no novelty.

You know why? Modern games are way better. This isn't to say these isn't some annoying shit that goes along with them. But the old days weren't some magical time of gaming. It seems magical because it was new, especially to the people living during that time, and simply due to nostalgia.

I know I won't be popular, but I love modern gaming. I throw a game I'm interested in in my steam wish list. I wait for it to drop to below 20 dollars, and then I buy it.

The most recent games that I've put a ton of hours into are bg3 and anno 1800. No micro transactions, unless I missed something.

I also played a ton of supercell games: coc, cr, and bs. Many entertaining hours over years. Never spent a dime. Micro transactions other people paid allowed me to play for free. How is this not amazing?

I'm open to hearing competing ideas, but if you do you disagree with me, expect me to ask why you don't do the things above, and just answer the question in your post. If that's ignored, it will just indicate to me that you realize I'm right.

[-] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago

Good games are good games no matter the era. I don’t think you can find many serious people claim that Barbie’s Horse Adventures is better than Red Dead Redemption 2 just because it’s retro. And No serious person is going to claim that Suicide Squad is better than A Link to the Past, just because it’s a modern game

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

What was great is that we had more free time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] menemen@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

No need to pirate. There is a shitload of games on the internetarchive: https://archive.org/details/internetarcade

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] caut_R@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago

The good thing was that games were complete and they didn‘t try to suck ever last penny out of you post-launch. Also, no updates meant they actually couldn‘t just ship them broken and fix later…

[-] TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

But it did mean they would ship them broken with no chance of fixing them, tbf.

[-] uienia@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

That only happened extremely rarely. Nowadays it seems to be almost mandatory, precisely because the mindset is that they can just fix it later

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

That happened like, 6 times.

I can literally only think of a handful of games that had serious bugs.

There was that ninja turtles game for nes with the impossible jump, there was enter the matrix for PS2/xbox that was completely not done. There were a few games that were poorly conceived in the first place like ET for Atari...

But yeah, what else had serious bugs?

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 11 points 9 months ago

There isn't a single game without bugs

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] menemen@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

Maybe I am old, but having no micro-payment bullshit is what made gaming better.

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 14 points 9 months ago

Never been to an arcade, eh?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You didn't have to deal with random re-balancing changing your gameplay, spying and tracking embedded in everything, hackers ruining the game or targeting you, invasive DRM (consoles), being forced to update your system for an hour before you can play, being forced to sign up for bullshit accounts in order to play the game you just bought, games that have required updates the day they come out, your games disappearing forever because the publisher changed their mind and removed it from the store, game content being removed to sell as DLC instead, being pressured to link social media accounts, bigger companies buying the game and forcing you to use their services to play it, companies monitoring and recording player interactions, companies going under making it impossible to play the game you already bought...

Holy shit. I never realized how bad modern gaming has gotten.

[-] smeg@feddit.uk 23 points 9 months ago

Modern AAA gaming, this is like complaining that all movies are copy+paste superhero flicks because that's all you see at the cinema!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] solitaire@infosec.pub 24 points 9 months ago

The level of quality and number of bugs depends a lot on the era you're talking about, as well as the platform. As a PC gamer from the 90s, much of my technical literacy came about from trying to coax games to work. My experience with console gaming was usually much more hassle free, though I have far less experience with it and don't have a modern point of comparison (last console I even used, not even owned, was the PS3).

My real point of "it was better in the old days", is the industry learning to exploit addiction. It's everywhere, and it's not just gambling. The longer you play the more likely you are to pay so even without loot boxes and the like, games are taking as much out of casino playbooks as possible. It's fucking revolting and should be criminal.

As someone who has had problems with addiction of various kinds in the past, it's so blatant to me. I can feel it playing into my vulnerabilities and it makes my blood boil. I avoid most gaming these days because I know if I let it become a habit, the next time life knocks me down I'll fall victim to this.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

Could do without online play.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 9 months ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] seriousconsideration@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I love my old school games and will never stop playing SNES, 64, PS1, and PS2, but there were plenty of crap games on those systems too. Just like how indies and Minecraft and Soulsbornes right now are dope as hell, but everyone complains about Ubisoft and EA so much you'd think that they were the only publishers in the 2020s. There's been solid titles and shovelwware every single generation ever since the Atari 2600. Also, the games that a lot of us grew up playing that have gone down as "the best games of all time" like FF7 and Goldeneye would be considered borderline unplayable by kids today.

BRING BACK MANUALS.

[-] darkpanda@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago

Give Tunic a try. The in-game manual is a central piece of its overall puzzle.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 8 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 8 months ago

Game updates bring bad with the good, because devs often rely on them to deliver a full, playable game.

When you bought a game back in the day, you got a full, playable game on the media. It wasn't always bug-free, because... you know... it's software, but they had to at least quash all the showstoppers without the benefit of a Day 1 patch.

And don't get me started about DRM...

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] dmalteseknight@programming.dev 15 points 9 months ago

If you are talking about the late 90's and early 2000's there was plently of multiplayer games and saving was pretty much standard.

[-] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 16 points 9 months ago

I honestly think the generalization of parents here are GenX where we grew up on Atari, colicovision and then the original NES.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Jtskywalker@lemm.ee 15 points 8 months ago

I loved reading through the manual for Morrowind with the copy we got on the original XBox. I read all the class descriptions, details about the schools of magic, and had a whole character planned out before starting the game. I didn't get into tabletop gaming until much later, but looking back, that manual really captured the same feeling of reading through the D&D players handbook and picking out a race, class, background, etc.

I think that feeling is why it's still my favorite PC game.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee 14 points 8 months ago

i remember when games were artificially hard so you had to keep renting it longer to beat it. and if you die you go all the way back to the start of the game. so much fun

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Xerodin@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That was a large part of the charm for me in Tunic. The core mechanic was collecting pages of the instruction booklet as you adventured so you could learn the mechanics of the game. The other part of that being the manual was written in an unknown language* and you'd need to infer what the instructions meant using context clues. It was an absolute blast and hit the dopamine button when I figured out some puzzles.

*Btw, if you know, you know

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 8 months ago

Yes, there was no online play or updates, so they couldn't steal back the game you paid for because they decided to stop supporting it one day.

[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 13 points 9 months ago

A few days ago, I found out that one of the first games I ever owned, The Broken Land, was abandonware. I knew that it was generally considered a bad Diablo knock-off, but I had it remembered as at least the items and enemies being 'meaningful' in ways I don't see it today anymore.

Lots of games just look formulaic and predictable to me now. Like, there's a small and a medium potion, yeah alright game, I'm slowly getting too large of a health pool for you to not give me the big potions.

Well, I looked a little closer at the screenshots, and yeah, fuck me, the game doesn't even try to hide its formulaicness. Health potions are literally just PNGs with a number attached, in variants, small, medium, big. There's like 10 different PNGs of armor. And you'll frequently have just one or two enemy types copy-pasted all over an area.

I guess, that is why people call it a bad Diablo knock-off. But having been a kid without expectations when I played it, that had me remember specifically that part as comparatively good, when it was objectively pretty bad...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Well yea:

  • No online play meant game had to be played with people sitting next to you. You had to socialize;
  • No updates meant games had to be finished when sold, none of the early access or battle pass bullshit;
  • Games were made hard to artificially give longer play time but this resulted in sense of achievement when you beat the game;
  • Booklets were actually awesome because you had lore in your hands which was written in a way not to spoil the game but hyped you to play further so you could get to that content.

Sure for the most part it's nostalgia, but technology brought as many, if not more, bad things as it did with good things. We've seen games get much better than old games and we've seen them much worse.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

A couple of points.

We didn't need online access back then, we had LAN parties.

Most of the time you didn't need updates, because back then they were much more diligent about making sure a game released without bugs. Yes a few existed, but much less than what you see in today's games. A showstopper bug was death for sales, since it couldn't be fixed inexpensively.

And those instruction books, especially if you are into the artistry that they put into them, is sorely missed, truly.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

You don't miss those games, you miss being a kid playing those games.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bulwark@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Dude I remember reading the original X-Com manual like it was a novel.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
996 points (95.3% liked)

Games

32989 readers
1407 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS