Classic games: Just not really that good?

GEC: Discuss gaming, computers and electronics and venture into the bizarre world of STGODs.

Moderator: Thanas

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by TheFeniX »

Eleas wrote:There was a pretty huge range of difficulty. Some games were, as pointed out earlier, just punishing in order to make the game last.
But did it really make the games last? Would Contra have been as popular without the Konami code? What about Ikari Warriors and "Up + Start?" Mario Bros. (and later iterations) had warp pipes allowing you to bypass or easily access later levels. I think it's more that people forgave these games because nothing else was available. That, or they had a Game Genie.
Same thing with Sonic. Having never played Metroid, I can't comment, but I would imagine it to be similar.
Sonic was just Mario with easy mode and nitrous. It's also SNES era. I will give that it's original formula worked well and later games that broke away from that sucked. It also had a graphics and controls edge over Metroid, but the games aren't really comparable because Metroid has never been a straight platformer. Sonic and Mario could be beaten by moving from left to right. Metroid almost required a guide just to find game required upgrades. I remember bomb jumping through walls, then ending up confused because I'm in an area that my home-made map says I shouldn't be in.
A bare minority of games were sufficiently varied and interesting that you would play them despite their unfairness. Another World springs to mind.
SNES era and it also relied heavily on memorization. I could beat the game in one go, gun fights aside. I would also get jacked by the occasional missed jump, but that was controls more than anything. It also benefited from checkpoints and no "Game Over" screen. It's also one of the first I remember of having death animations depending on how you died or what killed you. Resident Evil would take that to a whole new level. The game isn't easy, but it doesn't punish you excessively for fucking up 3 times, like many games of it's generation (the SNES era was when more and more games relied on save data).

I can't think of many NES games I beat legit or that would do well with a direct port. Sadly, one off-hand is "Goonies 2" which was ahead of it's time when it came to inventory management. It even channeled adventure games with it's weird puzzles. Then again, porting it would have kids all around asking "WTF is the Goonies?" and I just don't have the time to beat that many people to death.

Faxanadu could have updated graphics and some more dialog added in and might do ok as an XBLive arcade game. Shadow Complex showed that there's still a niche for well-made 2D (or quasi 3D) platformers with "Go here do X" mentality. But there's almost no way they could compete with the plethora of FPSs that dominate the market today. I disagree with the OP though: I like Reshelled because it has four-player co-op. Half the fun with games like Contra and River City Ransom was co-op.
User avatar
Eleas
Jaina Dax
Posts: 4896
Joined: 2002-07-08 05:08am
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Eleas »

TheFeniX wrote:
Eleas wrote:There was a pretty huge range of difficulty. Some games were, as pointed out earlier, just punishing in order to make the game last.
But did it really make the games last? Would Contra have been as popular without the Konami code? What about Ikari Warriors and "Up + Start?" Mario Bros. (and later iterations) had warp pipes allowing you to bypass or easily access later levels. I think it's more that people forgave these games because nothing else was available. That, or they had a Game Genie.
"Last"? Well, it's a good question. I think it did in certain cases. It lasted when all you had was a few game, and it helped if you were competitive or prone to OCD. In practice, I back then I played most of the games I owned a few times, because of the variety and because each individual game only lasted so long anyway.
Sonic was just Mario with easy mode and nitrous. It's also SNES era. I will give that it's original formula worked well and later games that broke away from that sucked. It also had a graphics and controls edge over Metroid, but the games aren't really comparable because Metroid has never been a straight platformer. Sonic and Mario could be beaten by moving from left to right. Metroid almost required a guide just to find game required upgrades. I remember bomb jumping through walls, then ending up confused because I'm in an area that my home-made map says I shouldn't be in.
Ah, easter eggs and hidden levels. Those could be the shit.
SNES era and it also relied heavily on memorization. I could beat the game in one go, gun fights aside. I would also get jacked by the occasional missed jump, but that was controls more than anything. It also benefited from checkpoints and no "Game Over" screen. It's also one of the first I remember of having death animations depending on how you died or what killed you. Resident Evil would take that to a whole new level. The game isn't easy, but it doesn't punish you excessively for fucking up 3 times, like many games of it's generation (the SNES era was when more and more games relied on save data).
*nod*
I can't think of many NES games I beat legit or that would do well with a direct port. Sadly, one off-hand is "Goonies 2" which was ahead of it's time when it came to inventory management. It even channeled adventure games with it's weird puzzles. Then again, porting it would have kids all around asking "WTF is the Goonies?" and I just don't have the time to beat that many people to death.
Don't think I ever played that game. :P
Björn Paulsen

"Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves."
--Chinua Achebe
User avatar
Eleas
Jaina Dax
Posts: 4896
Joined: 2002-07-08 05:08am
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Eleas »

Lots of today's games would, I think, benefit from a stripped down proof-of-concept. That's one of the things they did right with Portal.
Björn Paulsen

"Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves."
--Chinua Achebe
User avatar
Oskuro
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2698
Joined: 2005-05-25 06:10am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Oskuro »

Wing Commander MAD wrote:Care to share, how/where you found this information?
Sorry, but I couldn't find that source when I made my post, or I would've linked to it. Check this out, though.
unsigned
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Vympel »

Are you serious, or trying to troll? His comedy act is based on lambasting shitty games, but there are instances where he forces the jokes by ignoring things that help explain some bizarre design decisions. That's what I meant. How you got the idea that I thought he was a real reviewer and not just a comedy persona is beyond me.
Wait, are you serious? His FAQ:-
That game’s not that bad, you’re whining about it, just because you suck at it!

Remember this is for comedy. Sure my gripes with the games stem from truth, but they are exaggerated. The whole point is to play bad. If you want to see somebody play good, go watch a speed run. If you take my reviews seriously, you are missing the whole point. Think for yourself. I may actually like some of the games I’m complaining about. I only focus on the negative. When I think back to the Castlevania 2 video, it was just a quick little video I made one night when I was bored, just for a little joke, and there’s real “Angry Nerd’s” getting mad about it. It’s funny how people usually see videos on YouTube and take them at face value. The same people probably believe that I go around in real life, wearing a white pressed shirt, stuffed with pens in the pocket, and saying “fuck” all the time and talking about buffallos taking diarrhea dumps.
Complaining about 'doing the research' is the exact opposite of not taking the reviews seriously. How can that be what you meant?

Further, that joke isn't 'forced', that game (Milon's secret whatever) clearly sucks, and saying that it sucks as a deliberate design decision doesn't mean it sucks less.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Stark »

Yeah, AVGN is pretty funny, because it's just like SDN; people dumb enough to think that because it offends them it must be real.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Vympel »

Also - can I please have a mobile phone? All this time I spend trudging through corridors, waiting in elevators and driving on planets could at least be used more efficiently by having me able to advance other plots elsewhere by having conversations with someone without having to fly all the way across the galaxy to visit them face to face.
A-fucking-men. The total absence of phones in various games where they should exist is just insane. The only explanation is that they leave them out to waste the player's time.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Stark »

It's been said before, but even in fantasy games you could reduce trudging with communciation spells/booths/whatever. Fuck, even Fallout has ham radios FUCKING EVERYWHERE in delirict houses THAT ARE WORKING ANYWAY and there's no communication network in place ANYWHERE.

You just gotta face up to the fact that game designers are conservative idiots. They WANT you to walk everywhere and back again and then back AGAIN, and would rather put shit like fast travel in than make the fast travel UNECESSARY. It's daft.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Vympel »

Stark wrote:It's been said before, but even in fantasy games you could reduce trudging with communciation spells/booths/whatever. Fuck, even Fallout has ham radios FUCKING EVERYWHERE in delirict houses THAT ARE WORKING ANYWAY and there's no communication network in place ANYWHERE.

You just gotta face up to the fact that game designers are conservative idiots. They WANT you to walk everywhere and back again and then back AGAIN, and would rather put shit like fast travel in than make the fast travel UNECESSARY. It's daft.
I've got to wonder if they put working Ham Radios in and were going to implement them but never got around to it, but just left them there as a useless curiosity.

How fucking easy would it have been to just call Three Dog on GNR to find out if he's seen your Dad?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Stark »

Or go to ruin xyz, get the information, climb up and have to 'be outside' or 'plug into giant radio towers' or 'find ham radio' and just say 'Three Dog, come back, the chicken is in the henhouse' instead of going all the way back to talk to him and have him give you ANOTHER quest.

Comms would kill so much fedex shit. I'm not moving your bullshit radio dish, but I'll kill everyone and then call the Brotherhood to move techs in to do it. If I want to know where Vault 69 is, I dont' want to go to the Pentagon, I just want to call someone and find out.

But then people might expect things to happen that are interesting and have events call the player. :)
User avatar
Eleas
Jaina Dax
Posts: 4896
Joined: 2002-07-08 05:08am
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Eleas »

Vympel wrote:I've got to wonder if they put working Ham Radios in and were going to implement them but never got around to it, but just left them there as a useless curiosity.

How fucking easy would it have been to just call Three Dog on GNR to find out if he's seen your Dad?
Because that's not how these things are supposed to work. The Fedex system is the same in all games produced since <arbitrary year here>. It's a fucking paradigm that just won't die. Hell, even when I picked up the GOTY edition of Morrowind the idea had become so entrenched that I welcomed the change... even when the change was that you have to follow in-universe directions in order to find the quest spot.

I think that says something besides the obvious conclusion (i.e. me being a fruitcake): that all these many games - various GTA titles, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate I and II, all Fallout games, Diablo, World of Warcraft, and the list goes on and fucking on back to the first titles where more than ten objects were possible to render in-game - are so cookie-cutter similar in this mechanic that I would welcome a change even when that change is like telling your rectal examiner to go easy on the lube.

Yet I did. Want to know why? Because while looking for some piece of nothing cave out in the middle of nowhere could be immensely annoying, it was perversely satisfying to fool myself into thinking that no, I'm not quick-traveling to this clearly and inexplicably clearly marked spot on the magic map for another fucking Fedex quest. I'm actually using a few meager clues to discover this spot on Vvardenfell that few have reached, and thus, no matter how it otherwise may look, at least that tiny difference must mean I'm not doing a stupid fucking Fedex quest.

Ah, the lies we tell ourselves. This is what "computer RPGs" do to a human being, folks. Look into that abyss. Look hard.

EDIT: Lubricated the text a bit.
Björn Paulsen

"Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves."
--Chinua Achebe
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Stark »

I remember that shit. 'For this trivial quest, cross the entire map and look around here somewhere for a cave that is not obvious. Also, there will be five million cliff racers.' It was utterly batshit, but at least you achieved something. Like in oldscore games, where it was like 'the red star in the constellation that looks like my dick, on the 14th of the month' and not 'cutscene teleport to here now'.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Vympel »

Morrowind made the sense of achievement of actually finding anything part of the fun. Sometimes it was. However too much and it got real damn tedious. I think most people just used the online map applications, like Ptolemy, to find all the cool stuff.

That's one thing Morrowind had all over Oblivion - all the unique weapons were truly unique and rare, hard to find - it felt like you really were finding a treasure when you stumbled into some old Daedric ruin and found some ancient weapon.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Stark »

Yeah the quest I'm thinking of was like the third Mage Guild quest, and it can take HOURS. Sure, that's kinda ok if you're making that kind of game, but 90% of the quests in the game were nothing like that.

'Cheating' in Morrowind by stealing a few water-walk potions at the start and getting the secret super armour was actually kinda cool.
User avatar
Nephtys
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6227
Joined: 2005-04-02 10:54pm
Location: South Cali... where life is cheap!

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Nephtys »

Stark wrote:I remember that shit. 'For this trivial quest, cross the entire map and look around here somewhere for a cave that is not obvious. Also, there will be five million cliff racers.' It was utterly batshit, but at least you achieved something. Like in oldscore games, where it was like 'the red star in the constellation that looks like my dick, on the 14th of the month' and not 'cutscene teleport to here now'.
Oh jeez, Quasispace. It took me forever to figure that out. and yeah, those were 'I beat it!' accomplishments rather than 'I had the patience to keep trying and now I won!'
User avatar
Eleas
Jaina Dax
Posts: 4896
Joined: 2002-07-08 05:08am
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Eleas »

Stark wrote:I remember that shit. 'For this trivial quest, cross the entire map and look around here somewhere for a cave that is not obvious. Also, there will be five million cliff racers.' It was utterly batshit, but at least you achieved something. Like in oldscore games, where it was like 'the red star in the constellation that looks like my dick, on the 14th of the month' and not 'cutscene teleport to here now'.
Oh man yes. I've been racking my brain trying to realize exactly why (aside from the slightly satirical reason I provided) I on the whole liked Morrowind's gameplay, yeah, even in that regard... except for the fucking Cliff Racers*. I think you touched on it right there. "It was utterly batshit, but at least you achieved something."

Acheivment. Was there really a guy working at BethSoft, I wonder, who in a seminar sometime between Morrowind and Oblivion raised his hand and said, "hey boss, I thought of something we really need to discourage this time around." Boss goes, "what's that?", so this developer replies, "the player's sense of achievement." A reverent hush ensues.

I'm trying to picture that. I wish it wasn't so goddamn easy.

But yeah. That Old School design was spectacularly crude, but it managed a few things.

Firstly, sure, the distances were annoying and time consuming, but you had to traverse them yourself and keep alert for the signs you were given; thus you were tricked into thinking of Vvardenfell in terms of "waterfall, a strangely shaped rock; now follow the worn-out path, past the lava fields, until you come to the abandoned village." Or, in other words, an actual place.

Secondly, as you said, the achievement. You did something that was hard, and you earned that money, and you could find the place again anytime you wanted, but it wasn't a cakewalk. The evidence was there that you did something to advance your character's skills, plans or treasury.

Thirdly, which ties in to the second point, not only did you get the achievement of trying something hard, it also convinced you of the fact that life on Vvardenfell actually had fucking substance, was strenuous and harsh, and generally had to be lived without the benefit of a flatscreen GPS navigation system. No, not even you yourself had one - you were just good, smart and persistent enough to find your way around anyway. And that shit wasn't all that hard after a while, either, especially when you figured out how to get yourself reasonably close. That's also why I never had any issues with the idea of mods for player-usable teleportation spells in Morrowind, either; it was a logical, and dare I say even balanced, way of handling things. That, and the overpowered levitation spells, got me everywhere I wanted, and teleportation was a bit more stylish, all things considered.

These ways of doing things were, quite naturally, rendered worthless in Oblivion. Because Oblivion wasn't supposed to be played like that -- much like other padded amusement parks sometimes aren't built to be traversed in anything other than a set direction, Oblivion railroaded the shit of every dungeon and indoors encounter, only rarely condescending to give you alternative routes. I played the game for a while, and couldn't convince myself to kill the quest radar and fast-travel system with mods (because the game is set up to require it), but it bugged the hell out of me. Why?

Because Oblivion is what happens when you have what was once a dangerous, wild realm, and then you sic Disney's landscaping expert on it with the greatest budget known to man. And before you know it, every valley is scenic; every field is become a carpet of flowers with hues rich enough to make a National Geographic poster look drab and anemic; every river and lake is a glittering, tranquil wonder. Now, all the mountains are slightly more striking, yet a bit easier to climb; all the heights look more sheer, yet come with newly installed handrails; every piece of wilderness has its own mysterious ruin, yet is never so mysterious that the guidebook hasn't a three-page spread on that particular location. It feels like one of those godawful old proto-gated community sitcoms where everything was just peachy-keen, by Golly!

Call me crazy, but when I decide to slip into the boots of an adventurer, I want a bit of hardship, especially if the alternative is some sort of pastoral guided tour. The world should be dangerous place, fraught with peril and all that shit. It's not supposed to cater to my whim. If it is so bloody Hallmark perfect already, then why the fuck would it need my assistance in the first place?



* I never hated Cliff Racers as much as most others did, and I think I know why. Because as a powerful evoker with a lot of mana bottles, I could turn them to char at range pretty much whenever. Even had a custom spell just barely powerful enough to kill one with the minimum amount of fuss, muss, and mana.
Björn Paulsen

"Travelers with closed minds can tell us little except about themselves."
--Chinua Achebe
User avatar
Oskuro
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2698
Joined: 2005-05-25 06:10am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Oskuro »

Vympel wrote: Wait, are you serious? His FAQ:-

<snip>

Complaining about 'doing the research' is the exact opposite of not taking the reviews seriously. How can that be what you meant?
Ok, I admit the way I phrased the whole thing it looks like I was taking the AVGN seriously, apologies. When I said "I find it funny when the AVGN does x" I meant I find the attitude funny, namely the attitude of those who expect games to conform to their expectations, and lambast them without even trying to understand why they are the way they are.

It wasn't a reflection on the AVGN himself, but using his act as an example. Sorry for the mixup.

About the jokes being forced, that's a feeling I get on some of his reviews, and he admits as much on his FAQ, he's focusing on the bad, so I bet he has to force it at times to make it funny.
unsigned
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Vympel »

Sure, that's fair enough. I was never much of a Nintendo gamer to begin with (my first system was an Atari XP ... something or other, then my first real system was a Sega Master System II in the early 1990s) so AVGN is the introduction I get to a lot of these (shitty) games. Except the Atari ones I already knew.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Master of Ossus »

I think Master of Magic would make for a really cool strategy game, today. It had sufficiently complicated game mechanics, and a great setting. They would probably have to re-balance it for multiplayer. But if they made it more like Total War... excellent!

Also, the X-Wing/TIE Fighter series were just great games, all around. It definitely ages better than the other flight sim games of its era.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10895
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Vendetta »

Stark wrote:Yeah, AVGN is pretty funny, because it's just like SDN; people dumb enough to think that because it offends them it must be real.
Actually, I find James Rolfe funnier when he's talking about things he likes. He's brilliant when he's doing monster movies on cinemassicre.
User avatar
Nephtys
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6227
Joined: 2005-04-02 10:54pm
Location: South Cali... where life is cheap!

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Nephtys »

Master of Ossus wrote:Also, the X-Wing/TIE Fighter series were just great games, all around. It definitely ages better than the other flight sim games of its era.
It does? I think the primitive polygons aged worse than the sprites of Wing Commander 2 and Privateer. And it certainly didn't age better than WC3.
User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10895
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Vendetta »

Master of Ossus wrote:I think Master of Magic would make for a really cool strategy game, today. It had sufficiently complicated game mechanics, and a great setting. They would probably have to re-balance it for multiplayer. But if they made it more like Total War... excellent!
Both Master of Magic and Master of Orion would make great games if they were balanced, however, the old Microprose Way was to allow players to create the most unbalanced nonsense possible. (Invulnerable Guardian Spirit = Instant Win)
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Thanas »

Nephtys wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:Also, the X-Wing/TIE Fighter series were just great games, all around. It definitely ages better than the other flight sim games of its era.
It does? I think the primitive polygons aged worse than the sprites of Wing Commander 2 and Privateer. And it certainly didn't age better than WC3.
Really? I just played TIE Fighter and it looks far better than WC3.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Covenant
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4451
Joined: 2006-04-11 07:43am

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Covenant »

Nephtys wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:Also, the X-Wing/TIE Fighter series were just great games, all around. It definitely ages better than the other flight sim games of its era.
It does? I think the primitive polygons aged worse than the sprites of Wing Commander 2 and Privateer. And it certainly didn't age better than WC3.

I think TIE Fighter's relative bleakness fit the star wars universe pre-prequel, before everything started to glow and give off bloom effects and shine like it was polished steel. Sure, the graphics ARE crap now, but they still seem to fit the theme--whereas WC3's graphics, while they're certainly quite tolerable, leaned a bit towards wanking the flash, and thus falling a little flatter.

At least that's my feeling. TIE Fighter was pretty bare-bones, and is all about the simulation. WC3 was a much easier game, with more streamlined controls and such.

Anyway, whatever, I've not played a simulation game more recently than WC: Prophecy and that short amount of time playing that incredibly frustrating nBSG one that you dominated me in.
User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10895
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Classic games: Just not really that good?

Post by Vendetta »

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Bellator wrote:Final Fantasy 1
Take back your blasphemy! FF1 remains among the best games ever made. Few of its sequels were able to capture the different classes and somewhat open endedness of the original - you can change it up a little on each replay to keep it fresh.

ok ok, what I'm saying is "i like it" lol.
It's certainly "ahead of it's time" in terms of being a bug raddled mess. Half the weapon and monster properties don't work, whole stats do nothing. the problems with it go on and on...

They didn't really settle down and start getting the mechanics right until FFIII, and even that had problems, hence the massive overhaul for the DS version.
Post Reply