this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
994 points (95.3% liked)

Games

32608 readers
1337 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DingoBilly@lemmy.world 95 points 7 months ago (31 children)

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.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I mean technical wise, games are better now and could easily be patched, but I think that's why games had better gameplay in the past to make up for the lack of gamer accessibility to patching.

[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

You're saying that because games couldn't be patched, they had better gameplay? That makes no sense at all.

Lots of games had crap gameplay. There are more junk vintage games than good ones. The gameplay was simple because it had to be. The consoles didn't have the power to do more. Chips were expensive. So they had to invent simple gameplay that could fit in 4k of ROM. If dirt simple gameplay is your thing, great. The Atari joystick had one stinking button for crying out loud.

You think Space Invaders has better gameplay than Sky Force Reloaded? Or Strider has better gameplay than Hollow Knight? You're insane.

E.T. for the 2600 had gameplay so bad it crashed the entire video game industry.

Double Dragon on NES had a jump that was impossible to make forcing the company to make a new cart and give refunds.

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Double Dragon on NES had a jump that was impossible to make forcing the company to make a new cart and give refunds.

I didn't know this. This is obviously why I never finished that game and certainly not because I suck at it.

[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

I might be misremembering what game it was. I was just a kid when I learned about it. I can't seem to find anything about it other than an impossible jump in the PC port of TMNT.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)