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!

  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I don’t agree with that first point at all. Games were not all that buggy, It was orders of magnitude better than it is now.

    • DingoBilly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think it’s because people only remember the good games and not the stinkers.

      I played a lot of shit games I can’t recall because I played for 30 minutes max. There was one game I never passed the first level as I couldn’t figure out what to do, I think something to do with jelly beans and a blob. How is that good gameplay lol?

      But of course myself and others can tell you about the games we played for hours like Super Mario Bros which didn’t really have bugs and were good.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        The difference is back in the day the great games were the highly advertised “big ones” and the “stinkers” usually fell flat. Now you have a mountain of AAA stinkers and have to go scavenging for indie gems.

        • DingoBilly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Not sure that’s right - before the internet I had no clue what was supposedly good or not. I’d rent games from blockbuster and just try them one by one. Lots of shitty games and I had no idea that Mario or sonic or anything was meant to be good.

          Now it’s a lot easier just based on metacritic or steam reviews to figure out if something is good or not.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Well yes, maybe going that far back it was kind of a shot in the dark, but the late ‘90 to early ‘10 period was a time where you had internet (or at least tv/magazines) to know which games were “popular”, most of those were actually well done, and you’d rarely have an AAA title launch as a bugridden mess.

            Reviews are also a hit-or-miss because they’re highly subjective. The Steam review system sucks as well, being only positive/negative and with troll reviews always at the top.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        A boy and his blob! That was a great game! But it did not hold your hand at all, you had to figure out what every different jerky bean did to your blob. It was a good enough game that there was a modern remake I think it’s on Nintendo virtual console.

        But yeah, that was a legitimately hard game for a kid. And with nothing, it wasn’t buggy, the gameplay was just different from anything else people were familiar with and it didn’t explain itself.