At their best, the originals were about a hyper-competent adventurer who always had a plan and was unapologetically confident. She was like Xena and Indiana Jones combined.
It was already a pretty tired cliche at the time to make a gritty origin story when the first game came out. We got an uncertain, untrained, and unprepared Lara with a whimpering attitude.
By the third game they tried to act on the feedback about this, but instead of something closer to the original, she became Rambo, covering herself in mud, hiding in the shadows, stealth killing hordes of enemy soldiers.
I think the Uncharted series did what Tomb Raider remake series should have done.
The enemy ai in those games was so bad that i couldn’t get into them. Especially after coming off of playing the last of us. That game ruined a lot of other games for me. Lol
For games that are in genres that I'd actually play:
Final Fantasy 6 (3): I grew up with the NES, and when we got a SNES I got whatever games I could from the $20 bin at Toys R Us. I had some friends who were a bit better off that loaned me some games, and I eventually managed to get my hands on a copy of Chrono Trigger (as well as other RPGs like Breath of Fire), but when I borrowed FFIII from one of them I was just... underwhelmed. I didn't really care for the characters, it felt pretty slow initially, and I remember getting to a bit with a bunch of moogles in the party and I just put it down and never went back.
I've since tried to play it a few times here and there, but it never really manages to hook me... but people sing the praises of it high and low and I just don't really get it because I can't get over the hump.
The Witcher 1/2/3: I just really don't like the combat, honestly. I've tried playing all three, and managed to get enough time into them to appreciate the good bits (voice acting, story, quest lines) but the main meat and potatoes for me in a game are exploration and combat, and only one of those really works for me in those games. I had a better time in the first game, all things considered, because I guess I was willing to allow a bit of jankiness from an older game, but I bounced off Witcher 2 pretty quickly combat-wise, and didn't manage to get more than many 1/3 to 1/2 way through Witcher 3 before I just admitted that I wasn't having fun.
Persona 3: I got into the games with P4G on my Vita, so part of this is 'going backwards is hard' in terms of QoL improvements and what not. But I also played the PSP port of Persona 2 (whichever one was actually ported in English) and had a good time (not so much with the PS1 version of the one that didn't get the English PSP port... that one was rough) so I guess its just the game didn't resonate with me as much as the other ones did... Maybe it was the characters or maybe it was the cuts that were made for the P3P version of the game, but it just didn't hit the same.
Otherwise, a lot of military-style FPS games (stuff like Halo or Destiny or Timesplitters or even Goldeneye 64 are/were fun), the more recent sports titles (up to the Dreamcast/PS2 I was fine with them, but more realism doesn't do anything for me), and stuff like MOBA or visual novels or 'walking sims' or battle royale or whatever those asynchronous horror games just don't tick the boxes for me in terms of what I want from a video game.
Ugh I feel the same way about The Witcher. I tried 2 and 3 and just couldn’t get into it. The combat was not enjoyable and it felt really clunky to me. I actually tried 2 a couple of times because everyone raved and I thought maybe I was just missing something, but it wasn’t for me.
I’m with you on FF6. The leveling system for abilities was interesting (but slow), but there were too many characters. The previous one on SNES (called 2 in the west but I think it’s 4?) had a better balance with number of characters to story.
I think Portal is the only one I'm fine with, probably because there's not as much action. First person puts me on edge and not in a way that I really appreciate. I also really like to be able to see the character in general.
To that end I also don't really like horror games, but I don't think that's as divisive an opinion.
I’m the opposite, I just don’t stay immersed in third person games, I despise third person peeking in multiplayer games, and I find it disorienting and claustrophobic when going into buildings or confined spaces in third person. I also just can’t walk up close to something in 3rd person and look at it in detail which I like to do.
Hell yeah, love BAR. The discord group slowly started falling apart as we all fell out of love with SC2 but we’re back to regular matches every night now that they’ve been getting converted to it.
I am more of an AoE or SC2 style RTS player, as opposed to the Supreme Commander/Planetary Annihilation/BAR style but BAR really just makes RTS feel so good it doesn’t matter.
My son and I are like 95% done the end-game content in the Super Mario RPG remake, only Culex 3D remains! It’s been a total blast. My biggest struggle is finding more games like this.
We’ve loved all the Paper Mario games we’ve been able to play (original, Super, TYD, and Origami King…. unless I’m forgetting one), but trying out miscellaneous JRPGs hasn’t had any success with him yet. He’s too young for a lot of games, but seeing things from that pre-tween point of view I also feel like we all could do with more games that aren’t fueled by adolescent angst or grim brooding. Bright, fun adventure on a foundation of silliness paired with great music is such a good recipe.
The Mario & Luigi games are similarly approachable and good RPGs, Superstar Saga (the first one) especially. They are handheld games so maybe a bit more difficult to play together with someone, though you could emulate them very easily to play on a more suitable device.
Sea of Stars also might be worth a try. Takes a lot of inspiration from Paper Mario.
Well, with that memory unlocked, it’s time to go pull out my Dune II CD and fire that one up again. House Ordos! In the meantime, I guess I’ll check out BAR.
Oh you’re in luck, with the original CD you can play the remake people have been working on! (requires some files from the original game but has been upgraded)
Dune Legacy - Dune Legacy is an effort by a handful of developers to revitalize the first-ever real-time strategy game. It tries to be as similar as possible to the original gameplay but to integrate user interface features most modern realtime-strategy games have like selecting multiple units.
Open source and cross platform
Modern display resolutions
Modern RTS controls like selecting multiple units and right-click commands
Original campaign with Harkonnen, Atreides and Ordos
Super Dune campaign with Fremen, Sardaukar and Mercenary
Multiplayer support
Map editor
edit: @gmr_leon listed below the OpenRA which also has a Dune 2000 rebuild on it if you’re interested.
Combat that feels closer to Dark Souls than Zelda? Odd.
I’ll add in a genre rather than a game: Battle Royal games.
We used to play a variety of games. Halo, warcraft, Smite, League of Legends… Now I have no gaming friends left as they refuse to play anything other than Apex Legends or the latest greatest Call of Duty.
We used to play a variety of games. Halo, warcraft, Smite, League of Legends… Now I have no gaming friends left as they refuse to play anything other than Apex Legends or the latest greatest Call of Duty.
Try hunt showdown. It’s kind of an anti battle royal game and a smart person’s thinking shooter and not a twitch shooter. Civil war era so no spray and pray. 12 man servers instead of 100 so it’s more tactical and strategic with our randomly dying all the time. And it’s a carrot instead of a stick; no shrinking map to create a funnel of conflict, but hunting for a single boss on the map that you must kill and then attempt to extract with the trophy it drops best sound design I’ve experienced in a shooter.
I realize this is an overgeneralization I’m making.
every game made since the ps2 was officially retired. I don’t hate them because they’re hard and I’m just not getting the handle of gameplay. I hate them for specific reasons:
the reliance on online modes. games used to be a singular affair between the player and the game. since 2008 online modes have become increasingly necessary to a requirement. with online modes comes a need for a server dedicated to that game. so what happens when the company shuts that server down? you’re sol. and piggybacking on that
games are released buggy out of the box. before a game wasn’t published until it was done. now it’s released on a target date and patches get released along the way. so if you happen to be in a position where you have the physical media but no internet you could have a broken game and not be able to do anything about it. I just think about that situation with the tony hawk game where the manus didn’t ship the game on the disc and players had to download the entire game as an “update”. and what’s going to happen when that server shuts down?
games are moving to downloads instead of on physical media. I’m a full believer in you buy a game you own it. some game publisher just said recently that players shouldn’t own their games anymore. gaming is going to move to a streaming model where you own a service (console/platform) and games will move on and off it when a licensing deal expires. sorry I don’t want any part of that.
games made that don’t require you to be online to have any kind of gameplay are becoming rare. I’m the game player that plays the game just to play the game and doesn’t want to play against another human player online. my competitive juices don’t flow that way. I’m perfectly fine playing against the game’s ai.
At least back in the day, multiplayer games released with the server you could self host.
Or you’d find a chill one that you liked and it became its own little community of sorts with regulars and whatnot.
Now, some games make it genuinely hard to even play multiple rounds back to back with the same people.
The ranking system and match making superceded the lobby.
There’s still a lot of enjoyable games, gems even, but there’s a lot of hot garbage too.
I don’t think it’s (just) Internet’s fault.
Hell, we’d play Diablo over dial-up and it was amazing at the time.
I think it’s more the corpo greed making its way everywhere. No mTx, no subscription, no battle pass, no unlocking bs, no cosmetics, no unending daily grinds, just you, the game, maybe a buddy if your family didn’t need the phone.
DRM didn’t exist, they’d ask you questions about the game manual instead.
I remember bringing the Fallout manual on a trip and reading through it thinking about what character I’d make. Now everything is digital only, you’re almost lucky if it comes with a wallpaper.
Look a remaster should or could have obvious upgrades, sometimes it’s visuals, videos, style, controls etc. that to me is good.
But that quote specifically tells me “the game has been changed for current day sensibilities” and I hate that. I feel it takes away from what the original had in mind, for good or bad.
I understand that many media have been racist/misogynist/ageist and accept that it was a product of its time. But I don’t think it does it any good to essentially pretend that it didn’t happen and I feel we’re just pretending it isn’t what it truly is when it’s changed.
I do think remakes are different however. I feel they are taking the idea of the original but redesigning it in a way that the new designers for see.
BUT the fact is, that quote is only ever seen on media that hides the past, not remakes the future.
It does tell you that it’s been changed, though. You can typically still go and play the original game. And it enables the people affected by -isms to enjoy it when sometimes said -isms would pull them out of it for them otherwise.
And it’s not like the original intent was for people to be distracted by what would have, to the developers, have likely seemed a small or unquestioned detail. We can never truly approach a game the way its original audience did anyway because culture changes so much, and a large part the experience you have with art is what you bring to it. Thus why graphical updates can make the game look like you remember it, even though it now looks much prettier. I think these sorts of updates can be similar to that.
Granted, it’s harder to access the original game because of hardware. But even so, a lot of original intent is always lost in the process of making a remaster. I’d argue “for modern audience” updates tend to be less of a departure than changes in visual design (the different lighting in the various Myst remasters that changes the mood, the extra foliage in Shadow of the Colossus remasters) or mechanics updates (the ability to control Resident Evil like a regular game instead of via tank controls).
Edit: I think my ideal scenario would be if remasters include “modern audience” updates of all kinds, to make the game as enjoyable for new players as possible, but also that the originals be made more easily available such as by legalizing or sanctioning emulation for old games.
Interesting but I do think things are a little different:
A lot of people seem to be commenting about how a remaster is about changing atmosphere or visual changes. And I agree with you. But OP is asking specifically about games with the quote “for modern audiences” in the game and that quote is not added for the visual or control or minor game design changes, but instead specifically to tell you it’s removed the “isms” out.
I think your point about isms makes sense, it’s just that I’m of the opposing view. That I think the “isms” have been removed out is like censoring a painting or movie. Sure it’s easier to digest, but what made the media so poignant is sometimes the rawity of it.
I guess I don’t think you’re wrong, just that I think it takes away from the original media for the only reason that “it sells more if we can widen the audience”.
For me the ideal would be you could choose between the two. How the game was originally made but with the updated graphics/control/design. Or the new one that removes any isms to placate people’s sensibilities.
I don’t think however my preference would happen because it goes against the idea of “hay we can sell more if we tell everyone we removed everything controversial about the game”. So I guess your idea solution is probably the best middle ground :)
Zelda BotW and TotK. I just kind of get board cus the game is so wide but so shallow. I wish I could like it cus there is a ton to like.
Any souls like. They just seem very lazy and the combat is just silly to me.
Just about any competitive game honestly. Part of it is I suck at them but mainly the trash talking toxic communities. Plus honestly I’m not very competitive.
Pokemon. I can’t wrap my head around the complexity and “meta” and the story doesn’t real matter anymore. I did like my first Pokemon game but that’s it.
Most Mario except Mario RPG. I played the heck out of SMB 1-3 but when that was all that was available. When games expanded so did my tastes I guess.
Not the OP, but IMO it’s that difficulty is an actual feature. And that feels stupid. Difficulty should be a parameter, not a goal.
I’m a story guy myself, so if the game doesn’t have a really good story, it’s not for me. And souls-likes usually sacrifice everything to difficulty. And even if the story was good, dying 20 times with every new boss would break me out of it all the time.
I think with Souls games in particular, difficulty can be part of the atmosphere. Whether or not that is your sort of thing is another story. My husband completely bounced off of Dark Souls even after playing Elden Ring. To him, Elden Ring was the first Souls game that was more interested in being a fun game rather than a difficult experience.
Difficulty is not the goal of any of the Souls games (not talking about soulslikes). The challenge is a means to get you to think methodically and strategically, and is a vessel to bring you catharsis and release when you overcome it.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne