Good games that aged badly.

[ThePixelatedGenocide]

Recently, returning to the Double Dragon arcade game was like playing Streets of Rage in slow motion, with a cheaper AI that's too easy to exploit.

I still enjoyed playing through it, but there's nothing it does right, that Sega didn't do better.

Are there any other games that you'd still regard as a good time, but just can't enjoy the way you used to?

Also, has the opposite ever happened? Where a bad/mediocre game actually improved with time? (Patches don't count.)

[VideoGameCritic]

Timely topic! I'm about to post reviews for Atari XE games Castle Wolfenstein (1981) and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein (1984). In their day these were A games. Even today you can really appreciate their complexity and sophistication. They were the original stealth games.

I can look past the rudimentary graphics and sound, but the controls are awkward. The keyboard controls are unworkable. One key will send you walking in a direction, and you have to press another key to stop! How are you supposed to sneak around like that? Using the joystick/keyboard helps, but unless you play coop it's hard to juggle the controls.

As a critic it's tough. On one hand I really appreciate the game's innovations. On the other hand, I'm reviewing it based on how it is to play today!

[Zack Burner]

I agree wholeheartedly about this topic. Take for example the original Virtua Fighter, when this first came out, it was innovative for realistic fighting as opposed to Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. Sadly as of today, the polygon graphics are primitive, and of course the gameplay is a little sluggish. Goldeneye is another example, using first generation graphics. The original Starfox on SNES has both sluggish gameplay now with low framerate and polygon graphics, though it's unreleased sequel Starfox 2 (found only on SNES Classic Edition), is a little better. And finally there's the original Mortal Kombat game, the digitized graphics and smooth gameplay have lost their touch over time.

[Gentlegamer]

Games don't age.

[lynchie137]

Good question. I would say the NES port of Double Dribble. When I first played it, I was absolutely blown away by it. And truth be told, I still like to play it every so often to scratch that nostalgia itch. However, because of the lack of any sort of season or tournament mode, the limited number of game options, and the fact that there are only 3 playable teams in single player mode really dates this one in comparison to some of the basketball games that came out not long after....

[matmico399]

Lethal Enforcers on the Genesis. It was groundbreaking back in the day and you even got a gun to use with it. Now I have no urge to play it. Virtua Cop and House of the Dead blew it out of the water.

[Alucard1191]

Fallout 1+2 on the PC. Don't get me wrong, they're still great games that aren't that hard to play through... but revisiting them now is harder than it used to be. The games just move really slow. I'll give them 45 minutes and I've barely made any progress. I give New Vegas the same amount of time and I have explored 3 areas, killed several geckoes, etc.

Now I honestly still like the older ones as far as storyline and general atmosphere goes... but it is harder to play them now than it used to be. (New Vegas is hard to top...)

I would make a similar note of a lot of those games. Planescape Torment, Icewind Dale, etc. They are harder to play now than then but I still call them masterpieces.

On the console front, many 32 bit RPGs haven't aged great. Xenogears comes to mind of a game I adored back then and playing it now I can still appreciate it, but it definitely doesn't have the same 'umph' as it did.

[Gleebergloben123]

Games don't age.

Yes, they do.

[icepeople]

Any number of games (classic RPGs in particular come to mind) where your fate is subject to a random number generator instead of skill/strategy.

[Gentlegamer]

Games don't age.

Yes, they do.

No, we do. A good game is always a good game, and the converse.