Good Three Moves Ahead podcast on old games that aged well

[Psillycyber]

https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/...gracefully

They talk about MoO1 and MoO2 a bit, and Civ2 vs. Civ4 vs. Civ5. I agree with them that a game seems to particularly age well when there is an absence of subsequent games that kept iterating on their mechanics and refining them. In contrast, games don't age well when there are newer versions that have come out that kept iterating on the same mechanics and are just straight-up improvements in every way. In those cases, there is no point to going back to the older, inferior versions. Who bothers playing

When you have to go back 20 years to find a game with a particular gameplay style, then it makes one more willing to forgive things like atrociously limited production values (music, graphics) or incomplete user interface (such as in MoO1). MoO1 remains fun after all these years because there really aren't any other games like it,and it is easy to look past the bad AI and bad production values. On the other hand, I have a feeling that once Remnants of the Precursors comes out, it will become increasingly difficult to forgive MoO1's shortcomings when a clearly superior version has been produced, and I will feel very little inclination at all to play vanilla MoO1 (in lieu of playing RotP).

[Ray F]

On the other hand, I have a feeling that once Remnants of the Precursors comes out, it will become increasingly difficult to forgive MoO1's shortcomings when a clearly superior version has been produced, and I will feel very little inclination at all to play vanilla MoO1 (in lieu of playing RotP).

Well, the initial goal of ROTP is not to iterate or improve upon MOO1, but to *replace* it -- as much for me as anyone else. If you play ROTP and then decide to go back to MOO1, then I've done something seriously wrong.

[Sirian]

I would say that, for me at least, Diablo 1 aged well -- and it has had successors. Those successors (as in the case of Orion) became obsessed with "new tech" and fancier graphics, and thus never actually duplicated, iterated upon, or replaced the original version. They were more like a new franchise unto themselves.

I enjoyed Diablo 2, but it has a TOTALLY different game balance and play style than the original.

Xcom is another game that has aged well. The Kickstarter "Xenonauts" is darn close to a straight replacement for it, though, and I'd rather play it than Xcom on the basis of upgraded UI alone. (Who really wants to go back and micromanage the gear on their troops every single battle, because the game couldn't bother to save that info?)

Descent is something else I could go back and play, and I could probably do so for Covert Action, too. I played the 2004 Pirates remake extensively.

Some games that have aged REALLY well include Chess, Go, Backgammon, and Mahjong. But that goes without saying, right?


- Sirian

[Ray F]

I would say that, for me at least, Diablo 1 aged well -- and it has had successors. Those successors (as in the case of Orion) became obsessed with "new tech" and fancier graphics, and thus never actually duplicated, iterated upon, or replaced the original version. They were more like a new franchise unto themselves.

I enjoyed Diablo 2, but it has a TOTALLY different game balance and play style than the original.

I agree completely! Diablo 1 is as good of a game and maybe better than Diablo 2. However, unlike MOO1/2 I think Diablo1/2 are much closer in replayability.

There are mechanics in Diablo 1 that really added to the immersive atmosphere of the game that were completely removed in the sequel. Those are what I miss when I am playing 2.

[Psillycyber]

I loved the 2004 Pirates remake! One of my favorite games of all time, really. I can still fire it up and have fun with it on occasion, especially if I give myself certain handicaps or self-imposed quests. And definitely all-around superior to Pirates Gold on Sega.

[Jeff Graw]

On the other hand, I have a feeling that once Remnants of the Precursors comes out, it will become increasingly difficult to forgive MoO1's shortcomings when a clearly superior version has been produced, and I will feel very little inclination at all to play vanilla MoO1 (in lieu of playing RotP).

Well, the initial goal of ROTP is not to iterate or improve upon MOO1, but to *replace* it -- as much for me as anyone else. If you play ROTP and then decide to go back to MOO1, then I've done something seriously wrong.

The goal of DG on the other hand is exactly to iterate and improve on MoO 1. While there's more risk that we will err in some way and regress versus the original, there's also more potential upside.

Between both projects, it is a good time to be a MoO 1 fan

[HansLemurson]

Finally got around to listening to this. I transcribed the quote from around the 1 hour mark that Psillycyber alluded to:

Ultimately it's just, what really makes a game age gracefully is that thing where the experience hasn't been replaced, it hasn't been improved upon, and the only way to sort of recover that experience and access those memories is to go back and play the original article. And I think that makes you a little more -- it certainly makes me a little more appreciative of it because it's like you can go back to not only this old game but the possibilities it represented. You can go back to it and you can almost see like a different trajectory the genre could have taken, right, if this thing had just done a little better, more people had paid attention to it if more people know what you know about this game, you know, we'd be playing better games now. But it didn't work out that way and so now all you've got is this one thing that's never going to happen again.

The "never going to happen again" thing is kind of sad, but looking at the present and past of computer gaming, I think that it is true. Our current game environment has evolved from the "paths taken", not the dead-ends.

[Sirian]

The "never going to happen again" thing is kind of sad, but looking at the present and past of computer gaming, I think that it is true. Our current game environment has evolved from the "paths taken", not the dead-ends.

No way. Too cynical.

This is the era of the indie developer. Not since the early 90s have teams this small (or smaller) been able to develop games and successfully bring them to market.

Heard of Stardew Valley? I am one of the many who bought it, played it, loved it. One guy did the whole shebang. It's a great little game, lots of fun, lots of character. You can feel the love the guy put in to his game in the care he took with the details. This guy is a millionaire now. And he's not the only indie developer to hit it big recently. The market is bigger than it used to be (games overtook both books and movies years ago and are now the biggest thing going in artsy entertainment, in terms of total dollars. I think sports are still way out front, but-- games are bigger than movies!) And Hollywood drops $100M+ on a single movie's production now a days. ... Stardew Valley was made by one guy.

There are plenty more indie games that are doing well enough to make a living for the folks involved. There's also plenty of junk and plenty of failed games and low sellers, but that happens in a free market. Point is, you can have a dream, get the game made and have a good chance to make a living at it even making the game YOU want, because AAA publishers aren't the only game in town any more.

If there really was magic in an old game, its dream is NOT dead. Just need someone who cares enough about the design idea and has the mojo to pull it off to apply themselves. Maybe it won't be the game YOU personally imagined or hoped for, but it may be something fun.

Bah humbug can take a hike. The days of great game design are NOT all behind us now.


- Sirian

[HansLemurson]

Stardew Valley isn't the best example, since it is Harvest Moon which never really vanished. Indie remakes are generally games that the dev played when they were a kid, and as time goes on those are just going to get more and more recent, leaving the less famous titles in the dust.

[ignatius]

Xcom is another game that has aged well. The Kickstarter "Xenonauts" is darn close to a straight replacement for it, though, and I'd rather play it than Xcom on the basis of upgraded UI alone. (Who really wants to go back and micromanage the gear on their troops every single battle, because the game couldn't bother to save that info?)

Maybe you should check out openXcom. It's a complete openSource rewrite of the original game minus the bugs, does not need dosbox and uses the original graphics. It has many UI-improvements, allows bigger battle-scapes, does away with the 80-items limit and yes: it remembers the gear of your troops.

ignatius