I tried playing Harvest Moon on the SNES today and having played Stardew Valley for hours, I thought I'd try and see how tolerable the original Harvest Moon was in comparison. I know and understand it is unfair because there's a 20 year gap between Harvest Moon and Stardew Valley, while also discrediting Harvest Moon's later entries since there's more than one.

Harvest Moon to me is a bit hard to revisit. Having to get used to only carrying two tools at the same time, your farm doesn't seem as big, you don't have a way to know that you're tired as readily, you just have to watch for the signs and the village you visit doesn't seem as characteristic. It's a basic farming sim, it has to start somewhere.

But Stardew Valley does so many things that it is easier to revisit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] emb@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

The early Pokemon games are pretty rough, after you get used to improvements from the GBA era. Particularly the remakes.

Likewise, the original NES Metroid after playing Zero Mission? Takes some getting used to.

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

That's just crazy talk. Pokémon Blue is my favourite, although I've only played up to gen 4 (Diamond, I think is the name). It's not as good as the previous generations and the physical special split is just weird IMO. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion for people who are used to playing like that though, I think it would make more sense to me if it was how it had always been. Abilities were a neat addition though, I'll give you that

[–] emb@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Even though it's hard to go back, I think Gen I is still quite good. I replayed Red maybe 3ish years ago, and had a great time. It's just that it's very rough around the edges until I'm used to it again.

The main thing that made me bring it up actually was remembering going back after playing GSC, and really missing the in-battle exp bar.

I'm surprised to hear you didn't like the physical/special split, I think it makes much more sense the new way.

That split was great, the sp. atk/def split is very good, hold items and abilities added a lot. Inventory management got a lot better in later games. And monster sprites did too, although the bad sprites in Gen 1 have a lot of charm and nostalgic appeal of their own.

[–] Dreaming_Novaling@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago

I'm sorry, I'm a young gen, so maybe that explains it but... I played the virtual console Yellow and got so damn bored...

It's hard picking a favorite gen, as 4 was my first (Platinum my beloved) but I liked 5 despite not being able to beat it, but the features they introduced after gen I are all very good. Physical Special split is good imo, makes more strategy to a relatively basic game (when you don't play against real people), abilities are great, newer types and type combos are nice additions, and a major one it the aesthetic.

Gen I characters and region are just so bland, the lack of themes, no extra minigame stuff... And I get it was the first gen so I can't fault them for that. But the characters in the modern games are fantastic even if they're weak, the music only gets better and better (each gen feels like it has a genre now), they include neat side stuff like the Poke Olympics, performance contests, berries & snacks, a ton of other stuff throughout the games. Like yeah, the newer games fall hard on the battle/difficulty aspect, and GameFreak's inability to make a good looking game is astonishing. But they do put some heart in the little things in the new games, that just made grinding all day long in OG Yellow feel like a chore...

And even those there's a lot, more Pokemon just makes that initial hour or so of a new game feel so special, like you're discovering it all over again.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I enjoyed the fighting simplicity of the original pokemon games. I could recognize and know the names of 151 pokemon and their weakneses/strengths. Now there's too many pokemon and too many counters and hybrids. Too much work to keep track of.

[–] venotic@kbin.melroy.org 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

As much as I adore, love and still prop Gen II as peak pokemon. I also have to blame Gen II for bringing in EV and IV that has served for the longest time, as fuel to the fire. Additionally so has making pokemon born and all that.

Now there's mega-evolutions, old pokemon have aurora forms or whatever. Why complicate it?

[–] MissingInteger@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

The IV and EV system in Gen II is the same as in Gen I.
The "mordern" EV and IV system that's being used today was introduced in Gen III with Ruby and Sapphire.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

Yes. I enjoyed the simpler "rock paper scissors" offense/defense of the older games. There is such a thing as too much and it would be nice if game developers didn't always feel the need to add way more stuff to every sequel.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

Ahhhh I love how crunchy the old versions are! The only thing I wish I had on my carts is a FFWD feature for grinding.