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

Games

32579 readers
1533 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 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think it's because people only remember the good games and not the stinkers.

I played a lot of shit games I can't recall because I played for 30 minutes max. There was one game I never passed the first level as I couldn't figure out what to do, I think something to do with jelly beans and a blob. How is that good gameplay lol?

But of course myself and others can tell you about the games we played for hours like Super Mario Bros which didn't really have bugs and were good.

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The difference is back in the day the great games were the highly advertised “big ones” and the “stinkers” usually fell flat. Now you have a mountain of AAA stinkers and have to go scavenging for indie gems.

[–] DingoBilly@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not sure that's right - before the internet I had no clue what was supposedly good or not. I'd rent games from blockbuster and just try them one by one. Lots of shitty games and I had no idea that Mario or sonic or anything was meant to be good.

Now it's a lot easier just based on metacritic or steam reviews to figure out if something is good or not.

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Well yes, maybe going that far back it was kind of a shot in the dark, but the late ‘90 to early ‘10 period was a time where you had internet (or at least tv/magazines) to know which games were “popular”, most of those were actually well done, and you’d rarely have an AAA title launch as a bugridden mess.

Reviews are also a hit-or-miss because they’re highly subjective. The Steam review system sucks as well, being only positive/negative and with troll reviews always at the top.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

A boy and his blob! That was a great game! But it did not hold your hand at all, you had to figure out what every different jerky bean did to your blob. It was a good enough game that there was a modern remake I think it's on Nintendo virtual console.

But yeah, that was a legitimately hard game for a kid. And with nothing, it wasn't buggy, the gameplay was just different from anything else people were familiar with and it didn't explain itself.