Honestly, Diablo 2. It's a classic, it set the standard for the entire genre and it was a brilliant game. Playing it recently, it feels quite shallow compared to modern ARPGs and lacks a ton of quality-of-life features. Games like Grim Dawn, PoE, Torchlight 2 are way better.
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)
Games
37349 readers
1731 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:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Goldeneye. Revolutionized the FPS genre at the time. Nigh unplayable now. Tried recently using both NSO and on an original N64, it just hasn't aged well when compared to something modern.
With the N64, it helps if you can hook it up to a TV from around that era too. Games like Goldeneye look terrible on a modern LCD. I had that experience myself - "Man, I know I'm used to modern games now, but I don't remember these games looking this shitty". Then I dragged out my old CRT and hooked it up, and instantly it was "Now this is how I remember these games looking like".
I would love to experience X-COM UFO Defense, but the only X-COMs I've played to any extent are the two "modern" Firaxis games. Going back to the originals is a real effort, especially without having the manual to hand.
OG XCOM has a really rough learning curve for sure. It is easy to understand the fundamentals of but it takes a lot longer to get it well enough to really enjoy. Once you do learn it I feel like it is different enough from new XCOM that you can enjoy both. I love new and old xcoms a ton.
Old XCOM also likes to bend you over and fuck you over a lot. And that's the way we liked it!
Ah yes. Land Skyranger, open door, sectoid throws grenade into Skyranger. Evac with one survivor. Good times.
If the originals are too difficult to sink your teeth it, you can start with Xenonauts.
Mount and Blade. Warband is just the better version all around. It works in reverse too cause Warband is better than Bannerlord.
A lot of strategy games fit this bill to me. Mainly the Paradox ones like Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings. I'd much rather play the most recent version (EU4 and CK3). However, it's interesting that I feel the exact opposite about the Total War and Civilization Series, where I'll prefer the original Rome Total War and Shogun 2 Total War over many of the more-recent games, as well as Civ V over VI and VII (though I haven't played VII yet, to be fair).
The Football Manager series also comes to mind. There's little tweaks and improvements each year (this year being an exception where they are redesigning the entire engine) so I prefer playing the most recent one (even if I still boot up a few of the older games for some nostalgia every now and then).
I have set up the original Fallout (fully modded and running through Fallout 1n2), but it's pretty hard to get into. Not because of the graphics, which are actually fine, but just because the mechanics are quite intricate and I think my ability to learn new gameplay mechanics is declining as I enter my mid-30s (I've only played Fallout starting with Fallout 3). I'm going to keep trying to get into it!
No worries bud, the mechanics for 1 and 2 has always been shit. People sucked it up and played anyway because the writing was so damn good. If you can't get into the game because the mechanics or controls are bad thats the games fault not yours.
I have been trying to replay both for years and everytime I give up after a few hours because the experience is just painful.
As someone who played Fallout 2 as a teen it's not your age, the first 2 have a lot of little things that end up having a big effect, and they are difficult. They do not pull their punches and will happily smack you around.
I restarted Fallout 2 many times when I was first playing it trying to figure out a build I liked.
I tried, but I just can't go back and play Oblivion after playing Skyrim with all the quality of life mods. I'm waiting on the Skyblivion release to revisit it.
The loading screens omg
I put hundreds of hours into that game and loved all 15 of them I spent actually playing
I actually did. After waiting 10 years for a new TES game after Skyrim, I got bored and installed Morrowblivion. Played that all the way through. Then I played Oblivion with some visual mods. It was still quite fun, though I didn't do a full play through. If I hadn't already done a full play through, then Oblivion would still be an awesome game after playing Skyrim.
I'd say TES as well, but with Oblivion > Morrowind. I had trouble getting used to it being more toward the RPG side than Action. But it's rewarding if you see it through.
I couldn't ever get into oblivion since skyrim was my first Bethesda game and a lot of oblivion felt like (to me) slightly janky skyrim. I was able to get into morroeind though because it was just so diffrent.
This is pretty obscure, but the Game Boy Advance remake of Mario Bros. (Not Super Mario Bros.) is more fun than the original.
You can run, for one thing, and the controls are more responsive in general.
It’s one of the games on Super Mario Advance, and one of the main reasons I originally wanted a GBA when it came out! I had the original Mario Bros. for the NES and thought it would be fun to have a portable version. I was right.
They did a great job updating the game!
The original Neverwinter Nights after Baldur's Gate 3.
NWN was fantastic for it's time, loved the DM mode and online mods, but the clunky movement and walls of text without voiceovers just can't compare.
I'm trying to see some stuff in BG1 and 2 that I missed as I take another lap through the entire series, and I remember BG1 being a fairly easy, straight-forward game, but now that I'm replaying it, I remember that's only the tail end of the game. Early in the game, when you're stuck at level 1 for hours, lots of attacks just one-shot you, and it takes so long to get level 2. In Baldur's Gate 3, you're barely out of the tutorial area before you get level 2, so you just don't have that problem with low HP.
I got through the original NWN multiple times, as well as various mods.
I got bored partway through BG3, never finished. Barely touched NWN 2.
OK, maybe a slight twist, but Left 4 Dead absolutely sucks vs. Left 4 Dead 2. Want L4D? Fine. Play it inside L4D2 with better guns and zombies.
I was going to comment harvest moon after reading the title!
A lot of the older games for me. They're just a lot harder. Like maybe they expect you to be willing to replay an area or a level over and over, getting a little farther each time until you beat it and I just don't have the stamina for that anymore, or the time.
Newer games baby you, they increase the difficultly perfectly along side your ability growth. They might even make a level easier if you've failed twice. Older games don't care if you're having fun as much. There was less competition (fewer game choices) and more of a "gamers like this. If you don't like it, you're not a gamer" attitude, and now games want to attract everyone.
I have become such a baby about games. I want to have fun the whole time! I can't handle failing over and over. I'd rather just read a book.
Same, this is how I got frustrated by Hades. I no longer have endless time to sink into a game to get good.
The "story" of Hades is that the guy you control gets better over time and finally escapes. How else can you convey it? With text (cardinal sin)?
I don't think anyone is saying that the story of Hades isn't portrayed well with the rougelike style, but it's totally ok to say "I don't have time to play a game that's designed such that you fail dozens of times before you win"
I can't see myself going back to the original Half-Life after playing Black Mesa. The changes to Xen alone are massive improvements.
Just started a playthrough of Black Mesa the other week after having played HL1 like fuck idk, 18 years ago? Barely remember it, but going through the levels I'm like "Oh yeah I remember this part, with the mine cart/train thingies"
Looked at screenshots of HL1 the other day and laughed that I will never play it ever again
This will be controversial but Hitman blood money.
I have put hundreds of hours into the Hitman trilogy, but no matter what I can't get past the first guard of blood money, that is if I can get past the clunkynes to even get to him in the first place.
I would like to try it as I have heard a lot of good about it, big portion of the fan base think it is the best game ever, but no matter how many time I trow that god dame coin the guard refuses to move and I can't progress and that combined with general age and clunkynes of the controls don't make it an enjoyable experience to try.
In the trilogy and Absultion if I got stuck it was at least enjoyable trying to get around it, this is just frustrating.
I am an absolute die hard Hitman fan. I’ve played all of them. Replayed the whole series last year. Blood money was a better sandbox by far than the previous games. And it’s still a blast to go back and play just for the nostalgia and the vibes. But the people who insist today that it’s better than the World of Assassination trilogy are smoking crack. Not only that, but in some ways Blood Money was a big downgrade from the previous games. Hitman 3 in its current state today incorporates all the best things about Blood Money, the games that came before it, the game came after it, while cutting out the negatives.
The biggest problem with Blood Money for me was that it trivialized all challenge the game could have had by making disguises perfect and infallible. In the games that came before, having the right disguise only working from a distance, and get this: you actually had to act natural. You could just sprint between two armed guards, brushing both of their shoulders with a huge machine gun out as you passed by. In Blood Money disguises were simply an indicator of which rooms you were allowed to be in, and if you got a good enough disguise you could just be in all of them.
In WoA they fixed this without making you have to walk everywhere via the enforcer system, and better level design with tiered guards. Finding a disguise for the highest level guards let you go anywhere you want, but there would be more enforcers for you to have to avoid. Where’s more niche disguises that would reasonably make sense for nobody to recognize you were much better for moving around unabated.
That's curious because I remember Blood Money feeling really good, especially if I compare it to my memories of the original (don't bump the banners in front of the building - the physics cause my PC to seize up!).
I'll have to check it out again so I can ruin my memories.
Dark Souls 1. Especially on PC it's almost unplayable due to bad porting and DS3 and Elden Ring have refined the formula so much, it's insane. The remaster is ok though, so I don't know if that counts.
The original is rough yes, but I don't know anyone that would play it over the Remaster these days. And the remaster is fine as far as playability goes. However, it's still a candidate for this thread simply because the DS1 bosses will feel very anticlimactic for anyone who has played DS3/ER/Bloodborne/Sekiro.
I kind of prefer DS1 with DSFix to the Remaster, but I might be weird. I just think it nails the atmosphere better somehow.
Do the original version of Doom and Doom 2 count? The relatively recent, re-released duology is objectively superior. Also, OpenRCT2 makes classic RCT and RCT2 feel incomplete at best, and outright horrible to play at worst.
I actually really like OG Dooms just as much as the new ones. I didn't play either until just a few years ago so no nostalgia. They are very different and so I don't feel like they step on each other's toes too much.
I agree. Doom 1 and doom 2 are like exactly the same fun level as Doom Eternal, just in a different way.
Tbh I didn't like "Doom (2016)" that much. I'm sure when it came out it was amazing considering doom 3 was the most recent thing, but I played Doom Eternal first and compared to the FUN of eternal, it just doesn't stand up to the "rip that guy in half then latch on that demon with a flaming chain on my double barreled shotgun so I can use a Lazer balista to shoot that other demons head off while in midair to go chainsaw the flying meatballs eyesocket" of Doom Eternal
Wow yeah, I can say that going from Eternal to 2016 is the "wrong order" since the sequel really _ really_ ups the tempo and ferocity of its predecessor.
I think I prefer 2016 overall, because I'm just like mentally too slow to fully enjoy Eternal. I don't have those reflexes anymore lol
re-released duology is objectively superior
do you mean the "doom 1 + doom 2" on steam? because if so, oh boy are you gonna love gzdoom
https://zdoom.org/downloads
I've known of gzdoom for ages but haven't gotten around to trying it. I just really like how that duology Steam release because it's just "pick up and go" with modern resolutions, tweaks and that incredible soundtrack remake.