Underrated classic games

Generic Dreadhead · 21-04-2015 3:25pm

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Not sure where the accusation of baiting is coming from...
However, you're opinion is not very informed if you believe that games looked like rubbish when in fact they were clearly impressive when released.
And then stating that they usually don't hold up very well.
There's a case for a few games but if it's a classic then it will stand the test of time are there are so many of classics it's hard to keep count.

Being a classic at the time does not mean it holds up to the test of time very well.

I never said those games were "bad" or "not classic" at the time they were released. You're putting words in my mouth :rolleyes:

Johnny said what I was trying to say but wordier

da gamer · 21-04-2015 3:31pm

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Not sure where the accusation of baiting is coming from...
However, you're opinion is not very informed if you believe that games looked like rubbish when in fact they were clearly impressive when released.
And then stating that they usually don't hold up very well.
There's a case for a few games but if it's a classic then it will stand the test of time are there are so many of classics it's hard to keep count.

I don't know how his opinion is informed either.
I'm interested in what you say about if it's a classic it will stand the test of time. I have wondered this myself lately and pose the question; if a game is brilliant at the time of its release and for that generation, but ages badly, does that mean it's not a classic because it doesn't stand the test of time?
The reason I ask is like I said, I recently played the early tomb raider games and found them difficult to play due to the visuals and controls, yet I will always regard those games as classics. Whats everyone else's views?

Generic Dreadhead · 21-04-2015 3:37pm

da gamer wrote: »

I don't know how his opinion is informed either

It's informed because I own, or have owned at launch, the following and have been playing games for 27 years:

Amstrad CPC
SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, Wii U
PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4,
X-Box 360
iOS devices with mobile 'games'
Windows PCs 95 to Windows 7 used primarily for gaming

Informed enough for you? :rolleyes:

Or is there a magic, 15 Console, shelf I have to hit before I can say I feel some games date better than others and some games were classic and others were not.

da gamer · 21-04-2015 3:43pm

Cormac... wrote: »

It's informed because I own, or have owned at launch, the following and have been playing games for 27 years:

Amstrad CPC
SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, Wii U
PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4,
X-Box 360
iOS devices with mobile 'games'
Windows PCs 95 to Windows 7 used primarily for gaming

Informed enough for you? :rolleyes:

Or is there a magic, 15 Console, shelf I have to hit before I can say I feel some games date better than others and some games were classic and others were not.

I'm not actually disagreeing with you, some of those games have aged badly. However that is just your opinion. We can all list off consoles we have played over the years, doesn't mean our opinion is the right one.

kunst nugget · 21-04-2015 3:46pm

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Not sure where the accusation of baiting is coming from...
However, you're opinion is not very informed if you believe that games looked like rubbish when in fact they were clearly impressive when released.
And then stating that they usually don't hold up very well.
There's a case for a few games but if it's a classic then it will stand the test of time are there are so many of classics it's hard to keep count.

He's saying they look like sh¡t now not when they were released and I'd agree with him. The 8bit 2D side scrollers definitely stand the test of time better than nearly all of those early 3D games. In a fit of nostalgia, I picked up a couple of the early PS1 classics like Tomb Raider and Wipeout and they were just awful. It would've been better just remembering how great they were to play rather than actually giving them another go and being disheartened by seeing how unkind time has been to them.

Generic Dreadhead · 21-04-2015 3:48pm

da gamer wrote: »

I'm not actually disagreeing with you, some of those games have aged badly. However that is just your opinion. We can all list off consoles we have played over the years, doesn't mean our opinion is the right one.

Cormac... wrote: »

I find it really hard to call anything from that awkward 3D gaming era a classic, they were good if not great at the time but usually don't hold up very well. Take say Golden Eye as an example, super awful and frustrating to go back to now. But that's just my opinion

It's a sad day I actually have to quote my own OP on the subject given it was merely on the last page, I never said I was an omnipresent gaming god who is always correct :rolleyes:

da gamer · 21-04-2015 3:57pm

Cormac... wrote: »

It's a sad day I actually have to quote my own OP on the subject given it was merely on the last page, I never said I was an omnipresent gaming god who is always correct :rolleyes:

Sad day indeed, but that is Just my informed opinion ðŸ˜œ

CiDeRmAn · 21-04-2015 4:13pm

Sorry to be a nit picker JU but Einhander was a 3d game, all polygons and what not.
I think we saw a great number of awful looking games in those days, games that were fine at the time but aged poorly.
And that's an easy call to make.
But there were plenty that got it right.
Roll cage 2 and Gran Turismo may not have the resolution of a modern console or PC but they still look and play great, same with F197 and Wipeout 2097.
Spyro and Crash still have a boldness about them visually that still charms and Pandemonium 2 and Klonoa are still very well made, fun to play, good looking games rendered in 3d.

There really are no rules, for every 2d game that is superior on the Saturn you'll probably find one that's equally at home on another format.
So it is with 3d titles too.

johnny_ultimate · 21-04-2015 4:42pm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Sorry to be a nit picker JU but Einhander was a 3d game, all polygons and what not.

As was Tombi and indeed G-Darius, but given they were played on 2D planes I'd still happily call them 2D games, even if the graphics were three dimensional

2.5D if we're compromising

Thargor · 21-04-2015 4:48pm

Almost as bad as the polygons was the darkness and dull textures from those times, draw distances also.

da gamer · 21-04-2015 5:28pm

Thargor wrote: »

Almost as bad as the polygons was the darkness and dull textures from those times, draw distances also.

I actually liked the darkness and even duller textures at the time, gave the generation it's own uniqueness and added to the atmosphere of a lot of those games at the time

deathrider · 21-04-2015 5:50pm

da gamer wrote: »

I don't know how his opinion is informed either.
I'm interested in what you say about if it's a classic it will stand the test of time. I have wondered this myself lately and pose the question; if a game is brilliant at the time of its release and for that generation, but ages badly, does that mean it's not a classic because it doesn't stand the test of time?
The reason I ask is like I said, I recently played the early tomb raider games and found them difficult to play due to the visuals and controls, yet I will always regard those games as classics. Whats everyone else's views?

This is a good point. Let's take Tomb Raider as an example too. The original was pretty ground breaking at the time. I loved it, and regarded it for a long time as one of my aall time favourites. It was knocked off it's percha bout ten years ago by the stunning Tomb Raide Anniversary though. I've lately went back and played the PS1 croft titles again, and yes for the most part they handle really badly. They've still got some great atmosphere to them, but they definitely don't hold up to the juggernaughts that they once were. However, is the original Tomb Raider still a classic? In my eyes, yes! Regardless of how it plays now, it was a fantastic game at the time and I spent a lot of hours playing it; loveing every damn minute too. The memories I've made with this game still stand up, and are still improtant to me. This could be regarded as nothing more than nostalgia because of this, but what is nostalgia only recalling a time that was classic for whatever reason. The original Warhawk, Twisted Metal and many more just ain't what they used to be, but they're still classics and often the beginning of franchises that have grown from these roots. That seems pretty classic to me.

CiDeRmAn · 21-04-2015 5:57pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As was Tombi and indeed G-Darius, but given they were played on 2D planes I'd still happily call them 2D games, even if the graphics were three dimensional 2.5D if we're compromising

I think we were talking about the awfulness if early polygon based games vs the eternal bliss of sprite based art.
And with that in mind
Is RType better looking than RType Delta?
Is Darius Gaiden better looking than G Darius?
What about Super Mario World vs Super Mario 3D World

Its easy to prefer Sonic 2 over Sonic Adventure, or even be able to scoff at the naffness that is the Actua sports series on mid 90s consoles.
But there are games that were beautiful in the hands of good developers.

Generic Dreadhead · 21-04-2015 6:06pm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

What about Super Mario World vs Super Mario 3D World

Super Mario World

CiDeRmAn · 21-04-2015 7:34pm

Cormac... wrote: »

Super Mario World

Well, yes, of course.

I'm not to sure if I prefer Super Metroid over Metroid Prime though.

Retr0gamer · 21-04-2015 11:27pm

It's not really graphics that age games it's more the framerate. In the PS1 /N64 era an awful lot of games ran at about 20 fps or less. They might have sported groundbreaking graphics but the result is going back to them the control lag issues really hurt games like Goldeneye etc. it's why Rare's games mostly don't hold up on N64 while the Nintendo first party stuff that targeted a rock solid high frame rate still do. Twisted Metal and Warhawks classics? They might have been fun as early PS1 games but they've aged so badly. The bang of 90s Extremitude off twisted metal is so embarrassing now.

As for Tomb Raider, those games are pretty awful now on PS1 but I'm playing them at 60 fps on PC and Tomb Raider 1 holds up surprisingly well, I'd say it's a classic for sure. The sequels don't really. The combat once they added men with guns is awful and the level design just isn't as well thought out as in the original (not gotten to last revelation yet which I recall was a return to form for the series).

As for super metro is vs metro is prime, prime is almost perfect. Super metroid is the perfect game.

CiDeRmAn · 22-04-2015 12:10am

Blastcorps is still the N64 game I still can go back to, nothing like it since either.
Can't remember what it's frame rate was like though.
I can recall OoT had a low double digit frame rate at times but it didn't detract from the game at all.
It's things like crap cameras, screen tearing and clipping issues that ruin older games for me.

SeantheMan · 22-04-2015 1:22am

da gamer wrote: »

https://youtu.be/Rn9IbUtbzgY

One of the most underrated games of the ps2 generation. It's a pity it passed so many people buy. One of the best licenced games ever, graphically brilliant, good story, challenging with a lengthy campaign, I'd recommend anyone who hasn't played this to give it a go

The Scarface game was completely different to the story of the film If I remember correctly. I have it on PC...it was ok...very repetitive.

Kirby · 22-04-2015 3:51am

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Super metroid is the perfect game.

It's one of my favourite games ever. And I mean that. But I keep seeing you call it perfect. If you knew how many game breaking bugs and skips existed in that game you might very well change your mind. You can seriously break the game.

Being able to one shot Kraid, Accessing the alien ship at the beginning of the game, arm pumping making you run faster, getting super speed with about 5 steps instead of 20, getting super missiles before spore, being able to skip spore entirely.....No cheats. Can all be done with a regular snes, emulator, or on Wii.

This one in particular is insane. You can restart the game with all items. 5 minutes in to see the good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK83i8BwpIU

Star Lord · 22-04-2015 7:43am

Kirby wrote: »

It's one of my favourite games ever. And I mean that. But I keep seeing you call it perfect. If you knew how many game breaking bugs and skips existed in that game you might very well change your mind. You can seriously break the game.

Being able to one shot Kraid, Accessing the alien ship at the beginning of the game, arm pumping making you run faster, getting super speed with about 5 steps instead of 20, getting super missiles before spore, being able to skip spore entirely.....No cheats. Can all be done with a regular snes, emulator, or on Wii.

This one in particular is insane. You can restart the game with all items. 5 minutes in to see the good stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK83i8BwpIU

How does any of that impact on how good the game is? By perfect he doesn't mean perfectly coded with no imperfections!

Retr0gamer · 22-04-2015 3:06pm

I'd go so far as to say they make the game even more fun for speed running. After watching awesome games done quick I very much doubt there is any game out there without bugs or exploits.

Retr0gamer · 22-04-2015 3:07pm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Blastcorps is still the N64 game I still can go back to, nothing like it since either.
Can't remember what it's frame rate was like though.

The frame rate is dreadful but doesn't affect the game that much especially when the destruction you cause is what is bringing the frame rate to its knees.

Lemlin · 22-04-2015 3:29pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

.
As for Tomb Raider, those games are pretty awful now on PS1 but I'm playing them at 60 fps on PC and Tomb Raider 1 holds up surprisingly well, I'd say it's a classic for sure. The sequels don't really. The combat once they added men with guns is awful and the level design just isn't as well thought out as in the original (not gotten to last revelation yet which I recall was a return to form for the series).

It's twenty years since I played it, so don't ask me how it stands up to time, but Tomb Raider 2 was my favourite of the series because it involved alot more action.

Still have the Definitive Edition on PS4 waiting to be opened after I finish messing round with FIFA.

It'll be the first TR game I've played in probably 15 years. The last one was TR Chronicles.

Thargor · 22-04-2015 4:05pm

Lemlin wrote: »

It's twenty years since I played it, so don't ask me how it stands up to time, but Tomb Raider 2 was my favourite of the series because it involved alot more action.

Still have the Definitive Edition on PS4 waiting to be opened after I finish messing round with FIFA.

It'll be the first TR game I've played in probably 15 years. The last one was TR Chronicles.

Its shockingly good, didnt even need to be Tomb raider tbh, it could have spawned its own franchise with a few tweaks, great atmosphere.

CiDeRmAn · 22-04-2015 5:08pm

If you like Tomb Raider you should probably try Prince of Persia, both the original 2d platformed and the quite brilliant game on the PS2 and the first sequel.
The PS2 games have a great grasp, pun intended, of using 3D space as a climbing frame.

sniper_samurai · 22-04-2015 5:31pm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

If you like Tomb Raider you should probably try Prince of Persia, both the original 2d platformed and the quite brilliant game on the PS2 and the first sequel.
The PS2 games have a great grasp, pun intended, of using 3D space as a climbing frame.

Plus the HD versions are often down to €5 on PSN making them a bargain. Not without their problems on the PS3 though such as not being able to remap controls.

Thargor · 22-04-2015 8:50pm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

If you like Tomb Raider you should probably try Prince of Persia, both the original 2d platformed and the quite brilliant game on the PS2 and the first sequel.
The PS2 games have a great grasp, pun intended, of using 3D space as a climbing frame.

That directed at me, I played the sh1t out of them in college , finished them 4 or 5 times, absolutely loved them.

Mal-Adjusted · 22-04-2015 9:17pm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

If you like Tomb Raider you should probably try Prince of Persia, both the original 2d platformed and the quite brilliant game on the PS2 and the first sequel.
The PS2 games have a great grasp, pun intended, of using 3D space as a climbing frame.

The only one of those iv'e played is The Sands of Time on xbox. loved it. Iv'e been meaning to get Warrior Within

pablomakaveli · 22-04-2015 9:25pm

SeantheMan wrote: »

The Scarface game was completely different to the story of the film If I remember correctly. I have it on PC...it was ok...very repetitive.

The game was set after the movie. Tony Montana survives the movie ending and has to rebuild his drug empire in the game.

Retr0gamer · 22-04-2015 10:54pm

Lemlin wrote: »

It's twenty years since I played it, so don't ask me how it stands up to time, but Tomb Raider 2 was my favourite of the series because it involved alot more action.

Still have the Definitive Edition on PS4 waiting to be opened after I finish messing round with FIFA.

It'll be the first TR game I've played in probably 15 years. The last one was TR Chronicles.

I'm near the end of TR2 now after jumping in straight from TR1. There is indeed more action but since the combat is the worst part about Tomb Raider it makes the game a whole lot worse. Level design is no where near as interesting either with the great puzzles of TR1 replaced with find the key shenanigans. There's some bad game design as well with areas you can't avoid taking damage on so they leave a med kit for the player and since enemies have guns you can't really avoid taking damage so the solution is to load the player up with health.

Underrated classic games

Comments