15 "Classic" Video Games That Are Actually TERRIBLE

[GindyDraws]

A game like GTA III you could easily argue as it had aged horribly.

But most of the list is bait.

 

[vdB]

A game like GTA III you could easily argue as it had aged horribly.

But most of the list is bait.

It's actually on mobile now, so i'd say it's aged pretty damn good!

 

[Emperoreddy]

You want a real classic game that is virtually unplayable today?

Goldeneye. Holy hell. I loved the **** out of Goldeneye and trying today I legit have no idea how any of us even played it.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

What's really crazy about Goldeneye is how well it plays on mouse and keyboard today.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Resident Evil is another classic that aged about as bad as you can.

The updated remake fixes that god awful dub, and the graphics are really good. Problem with all versions is those ****ing tank controls.

The original Alone in the Dark is a classic that is in reality pretty bad, mostly because of how poorly it aged.

Myst is another one.

 

[KingBran]

Resident Evil is another classic that aged about as bad as you can.

The updated remake fixes that god awful dub, and the graphics are really good. Problem with all versions is those ****ing tank controls.

The original Alone in the Dark is a classic that is in reality pretty bad, mostly because of how poorly it aged.

Myst is another one.

I LOVED the old RE controls. The static camera made it more difficult and scary. I cannot imagine those games being any better with different controls.

 

[SniperHF]

I cannot imagine those games being any better with different controls.

They'd be worse. But the whole game would have to be designed differently too so.... The only qualifier on that is the N64 version of 2 has the slow movements with more normal up is up down is down type inputs. I think that works pretty well.

 

[vdB]

Yeah Goldeneye is def still playable.

Great music too!

 

[PullHard]

Like most have pointed out, this article is flawed because a lot of it is just dumping on old games for being old. If you wanted to do that, you could pick games that had crappier gameplay to begin with, but by selecting a lot of big name titles that people consider some of their favourite games it becomes obvious that the author just wants people to angrily read and react to their bait.

 

[Emperoreddy]

I LOVED the old RE controls. The static camera made it more difficult and scary. I cannot imagine those games being any better with different controls.

Game is absolutely unplayable for me because of these controls.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Amusing how a trash article can generate so much discussion.

Never got the hate for "tank controls": they work fine.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Amusing how a trash article can generate so much discussion.

Never got the hate for "tank controls": they work fine.

Because there definitely is classic games that are "****" either because they were badly overrated or aged really bad.

The author of the article just picked awful examples.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I always hated tank controls. Played resident evil on n64 for a few minutes and never touched it again after. Maybe it was easier on PlayStation.

 

[vdB]

Not sure what tank controls are...but always felt RE was overrated.

You don't see the Silent Hill games on here for a reason ...brillant horror games.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Tank controls are used in games with fixed camera angles: pressing up moves your character forward no matter which way they are facing.

The first Resident Evil game is one of the greats of the genre. REmake is especially great.

 

[vdB]

Tank controls are used in games with fixed camera angles: pressing up moves your character forward no matter which way they are facing.

The first Resident Evil game is one of the greats of the genre. REmake is especially great.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I think there's something cool about tank controls, it's almost like an art. It gives the game a unique feel and look.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think the dated graphics argument for a game that is 20 years old is perfectly valid and I disagree with the outrage over that.

If visuals are truly good, they hold up over time. When the technology of future generations truly makes a lot of older games look obsolete and ugly, it's just naturally exposing that a ton of them were never nice to begin with and that imperfections were being wrongfully forgiven at the time simply because it was shiny and new and up to par with the technology at the time (which is meaningless). Granted, just because something is old and didn't have the benefit of newer technology, doesn't mean it's automatically ugly. This is true for old movies compared to new movies too. If you look for technological polish, sure, nothing will hold up, but that would be a stupid barometer to use to judge visuals. If you judge by things that actually matter like art direction, style, color usage, design, and general effectiveness, games from 20-30 years ago can and should hold up if they were truly ever good.

Plenty of Super Nintendo titles still look gorgeous. Hell, Super Mario Bros. 3, a Nintendo era game, still looks great even with its original pallet. And a ton of PS1 era games have not held up and look ugly in hindsight. It is fair and reasonable to hold that over them when looking back and deciding what was actually great.

That said, while I don't think the models of FFVII are ideal, I don't think they're THAT bad, they have a bit of charm to them, I think. I wouldn't agree with "ugly".

 

[Shareefruck]

Also, with regards to the article itself, I will say that Mortal Kombat was an absolutely terrible ****ing game, even when it was released. It's mind-boggling that it's still an ongoing franchise that's considered a classic to this day.

 

[x Tame Impala]

As always @Shareefruck, relativity is a lost concept to you. Visuals are never going to completely hold up over time. It's an exponentially improving technology so games today are going to generally be better looking than games from even a few years ago, let alone games from 20 years ago.

Halo 1 came out November 15th 2001. Re-playing it, it looks pretty bad in comparison to Halo 5, even Halo 3 & 4. By today's standards it would be a very ugly game. But it wasn't made today, it was made 16 years ago with the technological limitations of 16 years ago. At the time it was an absolutely gorgeous game and it completely immersed a lot of people into it's universe. It showed a lot of people a lot of things they've never seen in a videogame before and that's why it's a "classic" game.

Also, L-O-f***ing-L at comparing the cartoon animations on Super Nintendo with the attempts at the 3D, real life imitation attempts that paved the way for the graphical quality we have today.

If what you're saying were to be true then nothing would stand the test of time and nothing would be impressive.

 

[Shareefruck]

As always @Shareefruck, relativity is a lost concept to you. Visuals are never going to completely hold up over time. It's an exponentially improving technology so games today are going to generally be better looking than games from even a few years ago, let alone games from 20 years ago.

Halo 1 came out November 15th 2001. Re-playing it, it looks pretty bad in comparison to Halo 5, even Halo 3 & 4. By today's standards it would be a very ugly game. But it wasn't made today, it was made 16 years ago with the technological limitations of 16 years ago. At the time it was an absolutely gorgeous game and it completely immersed a lot of people into it's universe. It showed a lot of people a lot of things they've never seen in a videogame before and that's why it's a "classic" game.

Also, L-O-****ing-L at comparing the cartoon animations on Super Nintendo with the attempts at the 3D, real life imitation attempts that paved the way for the graphical quality we have today.

If what you're saying were to be true then nothing would stand the test of time and nothing would be impressive.

Whether or not something paved the way or was fresh at a given time shouldn't be relevant to whether or not it works visually. Strong aesthetics are timeless. And visuals do hold up when they're legitimately done with a tasteful eye rather than being overly reliant on and satisfied with the superficial polish that technology allows. There are more limitations in the past, true, but how nice something looks has more to do with how well something works within those limitations than it does with what those limitations actually are.

If early pioneering 3D graphics look ugly today, it's because they weren't a finished product back in the day and over-reached, but people were willing to overlook it because it was fresh and new at the time. Why shouldn't cartoon visuals from the previous generation be compared to them if they're aesthetically more pleasing now?

It can be argued that the fact that these games pave the way for better looking games in the future by being the first one through the door has an importance that can't be overlooked, but that's a different argument from what is actually good or bad as a game experience.

I played Final Fantasy VII when it first came out, and I was floored by the technology, despite noticing and overlooking the imperfections at the time. The degree that it actually holds up today is what I care about when evaluating its visuals, though. I'll value the importance of the innovations it made, but that shouldn't affect my view of how great the experience and completed package actually is. Hindsight is 20/20 because it's the more accurate assessment. At the same time, I would argue that the visuals of Street Fighter II series feels more timeless and holds up better than the visuals of the Street Fighter IV series, despite having twenty years of technology between them. Similarly, Empire Strikes Back looks nicer than The Force Awakens, despite having way more technological limitations, because the art direction and cinematography is stronger.

And I don't know what you mean by the last line. Why would that be true? Things are impressive because they're done in a way that is appropriate, not because they're simply done in a way that is new and hasn't been done before. The latter is trivial without the former, and the former can stand on its own just fine without the latter.

 

[KingBran]

They'd be worse. But the whole game would have to be designed differently too so.... The only qualifier on that is the N64 version of 2 has the slow movements with more normal up is up down is down type inputs. I think that works pretty well.

I started playing RE games on the Dreamcast. Code Veronica was the first one I played. After that I think I played all of them on Gamecube and subsequent systems. I just don't feel you can get those atmospheres with camera's like in RE4/5 or an FPS like RE7.

Game is absolutely unplayable for me because of these controls.

I guess if you didn't grow up with them sure. But that was definitely part of the challenge of game and what made it so creepy. They had LOTS of jump scares which were fantastic and there would be an hour or so of gameplay without a zombie / scare but the whole time you are just waiting for one to pop out but instead you get a zombie dog! Holy hell! NOOOOO! So you run then try to shoot, run out of bullets and die... Then you realize the last typewriter you were at that you saved was halfway across the mansion from where you were and you had 3 typewriter inks on your body that are now gone.

Inventory management was half the challenge of those games. Everything had to fit in the squares and you had to decide if it was more important to bring more pistol ammo or take up that spot with a grenade or herb to give yourself health.

Game's were rough, fun and scary. Love me some old RE.

 

[Pilky01]

Very dumb list.

 

[Oscar Acosta]

For me, it's not graphics that dates games and renders them almost unplayable, it's having no control over the camera. I don't remember it being a problem back in the day but now go back and play a game that you can't move the right stick around and see 360 degrees is so awkward and hard to deal with.

GTA III, VC, San Andreas - used to think they were the pinnacle of games but holy hell, what a control nightmare at times.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Also, with regards to the article itself, I will say that Mortal Kombat was an absolutely terrible ****ing game, even when it was released. It's mind-boggling that it's still an ongoing franchise that's considered a classic to this day.

I think a lot of its iconic reputation is due to the "graphic" violence of the fatalities and such. As back then no other fighting games were that brutal. However, if you took that element out, well.....the gameplay is meh.

That said, I love the first Mortal Kombat game and have beaten it multiple times via the PC and PS3 ports, and I've also beaten the arcade cabinet edition.

After that I don't care though. I wanted to like MKII but the AI is so rigged and it effectively forces you to spam/cheese your way through each fight if you want to even try to win.

 

[RandV]

Whether or not something paved the way or was fresh at a given time shouldn't be relevant to whether or not it works visually. Strong aesthetics are timeless. And visuals do hold up when they're legitimately done with a tasteful eye rather than being overly reliant on and satisfied with the superficial polish that technology allows. There are more limitations in the past, true, but how nice something looks has more to do with how well something works within those limitations than it does with what those limitations actually are.

If early pioneering 3D graphics look ugly today, it's because they weren't a finished product back in the day and over-reached, but people were willing to overlook it because it was fresh and new at the time. Why shouldn't cartoon visuals from the previous generation be compared to them if they're aesthetically more pleasing now?

I've always seen this as a matter of fidelity. When creating digital graphics while new novelty can give you a temporary pass there's a certain threshold level in the technology you need to reach reach before you can start good results that can stand the test of time. Like for pixel graphics, no matter what you do you're not going to make something that's 'aesthetically pleasing'. Same problem extended to 8-bit games, it was almost there and maybe you can give some games a pass but overall the technology is still too limiting. You needed the jump to 16-bit before you really reach the threshold that the pixel grahics can still look good today - and many smaller scale indy games are still made to that standard.

So the problem with the PS1 gen for 3D graphics id it was basically where the NES was with pixels. SNES/Genesis 3D graphics (Starfox, Virtua Fighter 1) were basically Atari level, and the PS2 gen was the SNES-like jump to a reasonable minimum standard. Games like Metroid Prime, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, etc, they may not have had the horse power but the aesthetics really shined through.

Kind of the same thing with movies. While George Lucas didn't have all the fancy computer graphics back when he first made Star Wars, with what they did have the industry just passed the threshold to start making sci-fi moves that leaves no suspension of disbelief like Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, etc. The watchability of these movies would probably take a huge hit if they were made in the 60's or before.