Patient Gamers

Yeah absolutely. I think with a lot of these older games that are considered to be the GOATs of their respective genres you'll run into the same problem: They were so good, that the mechanics/ideas become the minimum requirement for all games thereafter. So, if you played the game on day 1, it was an innovative masterpiece the likes of which you'd never seen before. If you play it 10-15 years later after having played modern games in the same genre, it feels like the same old shit except without the 10-15 years of improvements.

For me personally, the game I'll get crucified for not enjoying is Half Life 2. I played through the entire game. It was ok. I was pretty bored for most of it though. Shooters aren't generally my thing for one, but even that aside the game was very milquetoast to me. I did a lot of reading up on the history of HL2 afterwards because I was astonished that I didn't enjoy such a legendary game and I think I came to the conclusion that some new mechanics such as the cover system and story-driven nature of HL2 were what made it such a hit in 2004. But 15 years later those mechanics weren't new and exciting to me and the story is decent but a far cry from amazing.

The other game that stands out to me is Assassin's Creed 1. I couldn't make it more than a few hours into that game. Just so boring and repetitive, the combat was boring, the collectables were boring, most mechanics didn't actually seem to matter...I just hated the game lol. I do think it's another example of later entries in the series/other games doing the same thing but better so going back to the OG just felt like a slog. But I really hated AC1 hahaha.

When Witcher 3 was winning all those awards, I wanted to give the original game a go.

Don't. I imagine it's nothing like Witcher 3. It aged terribly poorly.

Pokémon, actually. Just a month ago I wanted to play Soul Silver. But man, it is tedious. There's so much slow dialog, long animations, and little inconveniences everywhere (even in the menus). And I feel like you also have to grind to progress, which I absolutely hate in games (but maybe I also just didn't play well enough, whatever). So yeah, quite disappointed with it since I remember the 3DS games being quite fun.

Baldur's Gate 3 was good, but I can't play 1 or 2. They definitely don't feel the same.

For newer games, I can actually play the older Zelda games, but I can't stand the latest games. Not a big fan of the gameplay with weapons breaking and how much they pushed the open world thing. I very much prefer smaller maps with more story.

Starfield

I never did really beat morrowind or even finish any of the factions questlines, i was too young at the time to care about that i just did the infinite intelligence potion exploit to create an unbeatable god character slinging 50ft radius fireballs from level 1.

A part of me really wants to revisit it and and least complete the main quest, but damn does it feel dated.

I tried playing the original Deus Ex for the first time a couple of years ago and I sadly had to put it down before I escaped the tutorial. Early 3D graphics have not aged well, the controls were not very intuitive, and it just seemed like it wasn't worth the effort. I then played and enjoyed Human Revolution though; I know, I'm an absolute peasant.

Thief.

But I HAVE to try again! I want to write my bachelors about game design of stealth games and not analyzing Thief would be a crime against humanity

FONV and Skyrim. Even with mods, FONV looks like microwaved dog shit. Im mot even a huge graphics nut but at a point it becomes too distracting and FONV goes far beyond that. Skyrim's sluggish movements keep me completely disengaged, although the graphics don't throw me off quite as much, it feels so outdated that the immersion is ruined right from the very start.

Probably controversial but half life 2 for me. I got it very cheap on a sale after years of hearing how good it was. Just couldn't get into it. Even worse, every time I felt nauseated after a couple of minutes.

I guess this is just an example of a "you had to be there" scenarios. I was there as a gamer at the time but had no funds to play all the games. I skipped on HL 2 and can't get into it 20 years later.

Unpopular opinion for sure, but Vampire: The Masquerade. I've started so many playthroughs over the years but just cannot fall into it like other RPGs on account of its dated mechanics and graphics.

At this stage, I am loath to go back to any game where the UI takes up half the screen. RTS games especially just used so much screen real estate back in the day, that couldn't be scaled or hidden to get any back. Like playing your game through a letterbox surrounded by stickers.

Morrowind was always this for me. I started the series with Oblivion and Skyrim. Those have their own issues, but at least you hit things when you hit them, and their leveling systems won't actually screw you over if you don't Excel it correctly.

SMB 1 and 2. The SMB1 engine was revolutionary, but I hate the controls. SMB2, the Western one, just never felt like Mario, even back then. I also mostly started on SMB3 which had much better platforming and controls and was actually a Mario game, so that's probably why.

I consider myself, more or less, a "Zelda fan", at least from LttP to about half of Wind Waker. I will never play the first two NES games, though. Aside from 2 being "pretty much not zelda", 1 is so full of arbitrary wonk, "Guide dammit", and "Nintendo hard" that I don't feel like it even for historical purposes.

a lot of the invisible language used through game design from that era, I do not understand. There are many things that the game didn’t explain, and I assume they were just understood by players

A lot of the UI/UX and game mechanics from HOMM3 were taken from Sid Meier's games, like Colonization and Civilization. When you say you didn't understand stuff in HOMM3, I want to ask if you've played CIV6 or CIV5 or other modern games in that same genre? If not, you're going to be confused by them regardless of whether you're starting with CIV1 or HOMM3 or CIV6.

Quite a few, but more recently:

Neverwinter Nights. Even the Enhanced Edition.

Diablo.

Other older RPGs just start off too slow, but that isn't necessarily age related, but by design.

Morrowind, but only because I've lost where I was up to in my saved game from 3-4 years ago, not so much because of the mechanics; they didn't bother me too much.

Anything with consoles as the primary focus. You know the games, the ones where the controls suck if you don't use a controller..like witcher, and all those dark souls copy/paste clones. Cameras are too jank

The first witcher. The story seems really interesting and it has some great rpg elements but the combat is just so boring that I ended up startin witcher 3 without knowing the lore

For me it was Ocarina of Time. Ugly, and very clumsy. And I play tons of retro games. Early 3D stuff can be rough.

Fallout 1&2. I love isometric top down rpgs and have played every title since fallout 3 to completion. Something about the clunkiness leaves me with a lot to be desired. I didn't pay more than $4 for both titles on a steam sale so I'm not mad they're in my library, I just wish I could break through the barrier and experience the beginnings of that world.

My two are Morrowind, where I loved the quest design and lack of handholding, but the random hit chance and BS difficulty distribution were just... too much to handle.

And also, KOTOR, which I expected to love as a huge Star Wars fan, but the "stand around while dice are rolled" combat was just... exceptionally boring and tedious.

Super Mario 64, while i started with the nes i never really fully played the 64 title

I played it on stream some time ago but eventually stopped cause mario just felt so weighty and clunky to control. I tried 3 different controllers just in case it could have just been me, but unfortunately, i just didnt jive with it.

Final Fantasy Tactics. I always hear its praise and apparently the story is really great, but... I just can't stand it. Despite being a massive fan of its sequel on the GBA.

I've had multiple story battles end before I even got a turn it, just because the NPC I was supposed to protect walked straight into his death. And that's kinda true for every NPC, in a game with permadeath and NPC companions for a big chunk of the inital hours. Sometimes you just gotta repeat a mission several times for a single chance to actually play and win.

You want to recruit monster? Great! Now they multiply like rabbits and your whole squad will forever be clogged with monsters.

Outside of NPC suicide, a lot of the battles are stomps. Either you know how to abuse the jobs and become a literal god or you kind of suffer, since once again permadeath. Oh, but even if you struggle through, you just get the most overpowered unit for free, making the last part mostly trivial anyways.

There a literal softlocks if you save right after a mission with a mandatory follow-up without being able to handle it. Your save will just throw you into a battle you cannot win.

It just feels like a game made before proper playtesting was a thing.

I feel like after BotW and TotK, older 3D Zelda games seem clunky yet easy. I can't get used to the cameras in OoT and MM it feels so stiff as opposed to an old game like Kingdom Hearts where the first game aged well and the controls are still good.

Persona 1 and 2. As a Persona fan I see some people saying how great they are, and the story does seem interesting, but I can't deal with that map movement, battle system and endless random battles.

Really, any RPG with random battles is a little harder to get into compared to overworld monsters you can avoid or target at your own pace.

This is a weird one for me because it often depends on whether I paid for the game. I got the first Fallout game for free (from GOG or something), and when I inevitably became confused by the UI and objective I ended up giving up on it. If I'd bought the game (either today or back when it came out) I definitely would have invested a lot more time into it, and got past that initial hump. Back when PC games came on disc with an instruction guide, reading that was part of the experience. There's definitely a awkward period around the early 2000s when games were becoming way more complex, but before in-game tutorials were regularly a thing. I find it hard to go back to a lot of those games.

Likewise I played the first hour of Resident Evil HD on my PS4 (free with PS+) and never had the motivation to get into it. After paying for it in a Humble Bundle, I played through the whole thing on Steam and loved it! The fact that I'd paid for it was able to outweigh the fact that the game was quite outdated. I guess I felt like I wanted to get my money's worth.

Any game from 2005-ish onwards feels 'modern' enough that I don't usually have this problem.