Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Time-Tested Gaming 123

Posted by Zonk
from the hand-worn-favorites dept.
1up has an interesting piece looking at games that have withstood the test of time, aging gracefully where others have not. Titles discussed include the Korean powerhouse Starcraft, Nethack, and the Sim series. From the article: "It's hard to label which games are suitable for repeated lovin' and which are forgettable. One gamer's Halo is another gamer's Superman 64. But when it comes to firing up a favorite, some adventures hold the same appeal they did when they were released years ago -- and jumping in for the fortieth round is every bit as pleasurable as the first time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time-Tested Gaming

Comments Filter:
  • tetris! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by starbuck8968 (224854) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:35PM (#15468682)
    has been released for practically every game medium
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:38PM (#15468697)
    I mean, sure, it is one of the first real games for the PC (Right?) and it runs on a myriad of systems but I never got the allure of it, and I'm a RPGer myself. Can anyone say what really draws them to this game? I'd like to know.
    • The game is amazingly deep. There's just so much you can do in it. There are tons of easter-eggs buried in there and lots of references to other works of fiction

      I'm sure others who have more knowledge in Nethack will provide more info. I myself am not an expert on the subject.

      • It's also very well thought out. This is in contrast with Slash'em, a Nethack fork. The Slash'em developers basically just add everything they can think of without stopping to think if it really improves the game. There are some good things in Slash'em and I would like to see some of them brought to Nethack. But the Slash'em developers should really try to make the game more balanced. Try playing as a doppelgangen monk to see what I mean (you get polymorph control at level 9 and all sorts of excessively pow
    • by dick pubes (963843) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:43PM (#15468716)
      Nethack is one of the deepest, most complete games out. If you think it should be possible to do, then more likely than not you can do it in nethack.

      If you give it a go for the first time, prepare yourself to be disappointed. Be prepared to spend the first ~hour or so dying many times, mostly from starvation and YASD (Yet another stupid death). But if you get that through hour or so and last beyond around level 10, you will be hooked for life (not necessarily a good thing!). I would recommend reading some of the many guides on the net, but avoid the spoilers at least for the first while, it will spoil the satisfaction of discovering things yourself (like #dipping your sword into a poition of poison will make your sword poisoned as a small example).

      • Re: YASD (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > Be prepared to spend the first ~hour or so dying many times, mostly from starvation and YASD (Yet another stupid death).

        That's why I'll never play Nethack. I don't enjoy games where you're forced to "learn by dieing." It's like a stupid platformer game where you're forced to memorize the first N jumps only to fall off at N+1, so you have to start over from 0, only to fall at N+2. Repeat ad infinitum. It's bullshit. I've got better things to do with my time than explore the infinite number of ways some
        • You're making a mistake here. A platform that requires learning as you say is bad, yes. However, in Nethack you just die until you get the fundamentals of the game down. From that point on, it is smooth sailing. This applies to almost any games, even sports.
          • Re: YASD (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Chris Mattern (191822)
            > You're making a mistake here. A platform that requires learning as
                > you say is bad, yes. However, in Nethack you just die until you get
                > the fundamentals of the game down. From that point on, it is smooth
                > sailing. This applies to almost any games, even sports.

            Odd, I don't recall dying even once when I was learning baseball...

            Chris mattern
          • Re: YASD (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            However, in Nethack you just die until you get the fundamentals of the game down. From that point on, it is smooth sailing.

            Until, after another fortnight of playing, the game suddenly arbitrarily decides to kill you after all. It's usually at that point that people with other things in their lives realise that they don't, in fact, have time for a game where a single accidental death means you have to start all over again from scratch.

            This applies to almost any games, even sports.

            In Nethack soccer, if the g
            • I really can't imagine many people queueing up to play any of those games. Or Nethack.

              What you imagine and what takes place aren't the same thing. Nethack is popular.

              I wouldn't say that the game arbitrarily decides to kill you. It has its own rules, like any other game. Common sense usually helps a lot, but it's difficult to remember common sense in games because few games are as life-like as Nethack. I once killed myself by falling into a pit with an iron ball shackled to my leg, because the ball fell on m

      • Dipping a sword into a !oSickness won't do much. Certaintly won't poison the weapon. Consumable thrown weapons can be poisoned though. That excludes Daggers.
    • It's a combination of factors, including lots and lots of easter eggs and hidden things you can do, a huge difficulty curve, and lots of luck. My main problem with it is that most of the cool stuff that you can do, you basically need to read on a faq; you won't learn it just by playing the game. I've spent a decent amount of time playing, but it's too frustrating and luck based for me to actually spend enough time to ascend.
    • Others have mentioned depth, I think a lot of that comes from the random/polymorphic nature of NH.

      Every time you play, a new dungeon is generated. While there are similarities as you replay, it is always different enough to stay challenging and interesting.

      So you have to do a fair bit of dying before you get the hang of it, but it's not like you have to repeat the same thing over and over as you improve. Each trip into the dungeon is different.

      It's great because a lot of the energy that typically goes

    • It was one of the first games I ever saw played - I can remember quite vividly my dad playing it on a black and white laptop, back when our BBC Micro was also cool (I'm a young gamer, ok?) so I'm drawn to it almost entirely out of nostalgic reasons. I think I shall try and play it properly sometime...
  • Civ II (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cwernli (18353) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:41PM (#15468708) Homepage
    Not an adventure, but IMHO definitely the best game around: Civ II [abandonia.com]. I don't know how many months (man months, not calendar months) I've spent playing it...
  • One glaring omission (Score:5, Informative)

    by Crysalim (936188) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:41PM (#15468711) Homepage
    The first game I thought of was Zelda, but it was nowhere to be found in this article.

    I have followed Zelda games ever since I was a child, and even today, tons of people follow it. It was simply a perfect game. There's a community online that makes their own quests with an engine:

    http://www.zeldaclassic.com/ [zeldaclassic.com]

    Also, a person has redone the original NES rom and made another game that's fantastic on its own:

    http://rha.cymoro.com/zelda3c/ZeldaC/ [cymoro.com]

    • You're just being nostalgic. The original Zelda has aged poorly, in my opinion. It's not bad, but it's not-yet-quite-right. On the other hand, A Link to the Past did reach the now-it's-right stage, and remains a great game.
      • by edwdig (47888) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:01AM (#15470413)
        The original Zelda offers a lot that the newer games don't. The game very few restrictions compared to the newer ones. The levels are numbered, but there are very few you have to do in order to do the following levels. (Yes, I know in the later games you can get the item from a level, leave, and go to the next level, but that defeats the point of finishing levels out of order). Within the levels there is more flexibility in the path you take through it.
        • Right, there is really a ton of flexibility. Not only could you beat dungeon levels out of order, you could also pick up items almost anytime you wanted.

          You get bombs as soon as you want.

          You get the power bracelet whenever you want, provided you figure out the lost woods combo. The ladder just makes getting this easier.

          You can pick up the white sword without ever setting foot inside a dungeon.

          You can save keys from dungeon-to-dungeon, and even buy more keys if you get sick of searching for them.

          Most items
    • The first game I thought of was Zelda, but it was nowhere to be found in this article.

      It may have aged more gracefully than some, but it doesn't have one thing that a lot of the games in the article do: replayability. And a lot of times that will keep a game being played not only for a long time, but also more often than other games. Zelda? One shot, you're done. And don't tell me about the second quest; it was just a shell game.

      Zelda could go on a classic games list (and has, many a time), but there

  • by Mr. Samuel (950418) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:47PM (#15468734)
    Duke Nukem 3D, despite its aged visuals, continues to appeal to me even ten years after its initial release. It probably has something to do with its sense of humor and lack of self-importance, something thats a rarity in today's epic FPS.

    On the other hand, I think there's a hidden appeal to the higher-quality 2D artwork of yesteryear. The glory days of 16-bit artwork like the stuff featured in Chrono Trigger will always look cool in my eyes, where first-gen 3D console titles will stick out as primitive and likely ugly.

    • There's something about 2D artwork that gave it a leg up on longetivity. Early 2D games don't hurt my eyes. Early 3D games sure as hell do. I really don't play that many original ps1 games anymore. However, I still play a crapload of NES and SNES games. I won't touch Virtua Fighter with a 9 foot pole. But the early street fighters are still a blast to play. Maybe it had to do with developers getting used to 3D controls in environments. Many of those early 3D games had REALLY shitty control. If you pit 3D ga
      • 3D became a big hit back then, because people were mostly overwhelmed by a new, never seen 3D world. IMO, 2D died out prematurely (and took many good gaming concepts into the grave).

        Now with advanced shaders, normal maps and real shadows/lightning games start to look pretty again. This time it more because of better simulation techniques (with tradeoffs and near approximations of course), than because of improved art.

        2D had fixed point of view, meaning that developers knew exactly what players is seeing at
        • One thing that struck me recently is that the platformer is still a very fun game concept. Play N [harveycartel.org] to see what I mean. It's an absolute pain in the ass, but very fun. Back to the old days, I say ;)
      • Keep in mind that the 2D graphics on the SNES, and even the NES, were pretty mature in terms of both 2D technology and art. The NES came out when 2D videogaming had been around (and pretty popular with the Atari 2600) for over 10 years. Atari 2600 graphics were just as painful to the eyes of an NES player as Virtua Fighter graphics are to a Virtua Fighter 4 player. I suspect that someone could load up Virtua Fighter 4 in 10 years and not be bothered at all by what will then be "outdated" graphics, just a
    • I love Duke 3d. I will always be a duke-fan, rather than a quake-fan. And to me, yes, it WAS the humour, and the lack of self-importance.

      Which is why I also love Serious Sam (First Encounter, and Second Encounter). If you have an XBox (or even PC), I can't stress how much you should pick up SS. Up here in Canada, I got it for 19.99 brand new. It's a budget title, but I'd have to say that it contains some of the most fun I've had with a FPS in a looooong time. Nothing complex, like Rainbox Six or Perfect Dar
      • Thanks for the tip. I played a Xbox demo of SS2, and I got the impression it was LSD-fueled insanity...although unfortunately, not the fun sort of LSD-fueled insanity. Maybe I should give it another shot.
  • Other choices? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Clazzy (958719) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:53PM (#15468758)
    I still find myself firing up Red Alert, Tie Fighter, Sonic 3 or even Worms 2 time after time.
    Red Alert is a kind of game that still ends up fun, even after eight years. Those times when you turn around and go for a new kind of rush, taking down a Tesla coil with dozens of infantry, or just reliving tank rushes for the sheer hell of it!

    Tie Fighter had all the elements of a successful space fighter game, and allowed you to play as the bad guys. That in itself made it fun to play.

    Sonic 3 might be a bit different for me, since it was the very first game I played, so I obviously see it with rose-tinted glasses. Somehow, it got the formula just right and it keeps you going throughout, pure brilliance.

    Worms 2 should never age. The cartoony graphics, the silly voices and the brilliant weapons all come together to make something truly fun.
    • Europa Universalis II should definitely make the list as well.
      • Absolutely! I actually just fired up EU2 again the other day for the first time in a while. It's remarkable how well it has held up. (Note to strategy game geeks: you can pick up EU2 now for $15 [gamersgate.net], and it will run on just about anything more modern than a 386, so if you have never tried it, you officially have no excuses.)

        My only hope is that the upcoming EU3 is as good, that'll keep me content until 2011 or so ;-)

    • Worms of any variety is truly timeless. As you say, it's a combination of all the bits of cartooniness - along with a solid idea and a good variety of weapons. Other games using the same gameplay idea are less successful, in my opinion, due to the lack of seriousness exhibited by worms.

      Another series that for me is truly timeless is the Thief series. The first two games used the same engine - not even particularly advanced back in the day. Now they look downright outdated, but nonetheless, there is someth

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04, 2006 @07:06PM (#15468814)
    "1up has an interesting piece looking at games that have withstood the test of time, aging gracefully where others have not."

    Solitaire!
    • Or more generally, how about just card games? Board games? I still find them fun, even if they have very primitive graphics. Or how about real sports?

      As a side note, I think this has something to do with Nintendo's mindset...

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoDonPachi [wikipedia.org]

    About 9 years old and still an example of shooting perfection. The graphics still hold up fairly well. The sequel is great too, but I still come back to play a few credits every now and then... and for some reason get better each time.
    -ReK
  • I find it interesting how games that have many, many versions often have one that sticks out as the most enjoyable, even when compared to its simpler predecessors, and its more advanced successors.

    Although, both Tetris Attack on the SNES, and Panel De Pon on the GBA (part of Dr. Mario and PDP) are excellent versions of Panel De Pon. Now lets all play together, under the clearest of -blue skies-. :)

  • by B5_geek (638928) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @07:19PM (#15468863)
    Hmm, here is another list that might resonate more.

    ---------------
    *Oldies but goodies
    Go
    Chess
    ---------------
    *More recent classics
    Civ II
    Risk
    Seawolf
    Monolopy/Checkers (Just hear me out on this one)
    ---------------

    The pattern that makes these popular and still "Fun To Play!" is that it requires you to use your brain and think strategy. (And to a lessor extent this applies to Monopoly/Checkers)
    Sudoku is a recent blip on this theme.
    Any game that allows you to beat any other opponent based solely on your mental ability will be coveted by the non-jocks of the world, (and we ALWAYS outnumber the jocks.)

    It doesn't require physical skill. (Which is why most FPS games are mere blips in the pan, would you really devote 20+hrs to Wolfenstien3D again these days?)
    One brain vs another, priceless domination.
    • would you really devote 20+hrs to Wolfenstien3D again these days?) Nope, because I beat it on Death Incarnite without saving the game once. What else is there, play with the weakest weapon the whole way through?
    • "would you really devote 20+hrs to Wolfenstien3D again these days?"

      I would if it were Return To Castle Wolfenstien: Enemy Territory... I haven't played in a while but that was all I played for about 2 years. Great multiplayer game that was totally free. Enough depth via the various classes/skills/weapons to be interesting.

    • If I'm not mistaken, Go (Igo, weichi, paduk) is over 5,000 years old, probably making it the oldest board game in the world. How's that for time-tested?
      • And is addictive as hell.

        In fact, I'm testing the new glGo client :P (and learning, I'm still a low 22k? )
      • According to their respective Wikipedia entries, Backgammon [wikipedia.org] is a few hundred years older than Go [wikipedia.org]. About 700 years, by the dates given. (3000b.c. vs. 2300b.c.)

        Both entries make the claim on oldest game ever, but that's just some usual Wikipedia inconsistency. I've also heard from a seperate source (Wired magazine?) that Backgammon predates Go.

        Hm, I think I'll try to correct the Go entry.
    • While the theory is sound, I don't think this analogy actually holds for geeky types. Most boardgaming fanatics seem to have have moved on to German strategy games and US block games. Interestingly, go is the only older game to make it into the boardgamegeek.com top 50: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browser.php?itemtype = game&sortby=rank [boardgamegeek.com] Chess comes in at a respectable 190, Risk at 2445, and Monopoly at 2914.
    • One brain vs another, priceless domination.

      What makes that priceless domination? Why would a game like that be more worthy than a frantic fps? Do you really not think twitch games require skill?
      If you think fps games require actual physical skill then you need to get some excercise, because moving a mouse about is not exhausting.
      You can't say that fps games are for stupid people just because YOU don't have the necessary skill.

  • That game still kicks ass after 10 years.
    • I played Goldeneye with some friends about three times a week for nearly three years...right up until Perfect Dark came out.

      And even then our favorite levels were the ones from Goldeneye.

      I was just saying to my friends today that we should fire up the N64 again for some Facility hallway camping. With remote mines.
  • OpenTTD (Score:3, Informative)

    by Frogbert (589961) <{frogbert} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday June 04, 2006 @07:29PM (#15468905)
    Transport tycoon is fun to this day, and with OpenTTD [openttd.com] its only funner. The scope for track design is amazing and if you were ever into toy trains then this is the ultimate. There are always challenges you can set yourself, you could for instance only use ships. Or limit yourself entirely to passenger cargo.

    The scope of that game is amazing.
    • Transport tycoon is fun to this day, and with OpenTTD its only funner. The scope for track design is amazing and if you were ever into toy trains then this is the ultimate. There are always challenges you can set yourself, you could for instance only use ships. Or limit yourself entirely to passenger cargo.

      Or just try to make the damn trains follow orders :(. They keep on getting lost at the rate of making the whole rail system nearly useless... And since they are in the way of other trains, the whole s

      • Isn't that the point of the game? You have to design junctions and place signals and depots in such a way that the trains don't get lost and will be well maintained (don't break down as much) and can get to where they need to go quickly. Yeah it would be easier if the trains were smarter. But then there wouldn't really be much of a challenge to the game would there?
    • I was so hardcore, I'd find ways around the limitations of the game engine. I was always pissed off that the best you could do was parallel tracks, and that low-reliability trains could even bring those to a halt.

      I discovered that, even though the game doesn't support it, you can build automatic parallel switching trunk lines [geocities.com] if you're willing to devote the extra land required. WARNING: back in the day I hosted this on my buddy's old Geocities site, please tread lightly.

      You can also do fun things like swi
  • I may agree with a lot of what Nadia's written, but I think the final page [1up.com] has the most unfortunate linking of titles and graphics around.

    "A well-developed game will live for years." next to a picture of KOTOR 2, a game derided as being rushed to market (rather than being allowed to percolate to perfection), complete with locked-up content showing off the mostly-unfinished proper ending. At least Halo 2 had most of the bugs fixed before the "SEE YOU IN HALO 3" ending flashed up, while Kotor2 would often le
    • Actually, I rather enjoyed it. Just because you didn't like it, didn't mean it was a turd.
      • KotOR 2 was a pretty good game, but the ending indeed sucked. It was completely unsatisfactory. There you were, having trained all your crewmates and influenced them to become either good or evil, with lots of tensions rising between them and open ends with nearly everybody... and suddenly your whole crew is gone, and you have to fight through hordes of big-bad-bully-enemies on your own. And the final boss just tells you what happened to everyone, after which you kill her off. This is absolutely awful. And
  • by spud603 (832173) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @07:32PM (#15468918)
    the heading for the nethack section was (and i quote) "@ versus the evil %".
    '%' in nethack represents food, not any enemy. sure, when enemies die their corpses are considered food, but still not quite the point.
    'C','c','&', or pretty much any other character on the keyboard would have sufficed, but I think the title should have been "@ versus the evil @".
    But maybe that's just me.
    • Ever died from bad food? That stuff is evil!!
    • I was gonna bring this up but I thought it might be nitpicky. Thanks for being my whipping boy! :D
    • No. That is a very apt title.

      'trice corpse, choking on a wraith corpse (I knew a guy who did this...With the amulet!), green slime, choking on a melon (I once found bones in Gehemmon from someone who died like this), green blobs, rotted corpses. Did I say 'trice corpse?

      C aren't hard. H though... And T. Ts are NOT fun.
      • T(roll)'s are only really a problem if (a) you've wandered out of your depth, or (b) you're in a vault or similar enviornment where the habit of the Troll to regenerate can sometimes be a little annoying. They're just physical damage dealers with regeneration. A lot of the skill in NetHack comes from the ability to divide and conquer .. just aggravate your enemies, lure them away and beat on them. Trolls fall easily then. It's the annoying things like summon monster traps that can sometimes make T's a nasty
        • To bring this discussion full-circle:
          One of my favorite ways to deal with the troll problem is simply to kill them once so they become %, then eat them. They ain't regenerating in my gut.


          Oh, and to defend my original statement:
          Yes, % can kill you in nethack, but to summarize the game as "versus %" is a bit much.


          (and on yet a third note, this is my first time seeing /. in its fancy new css clothes. freaky but nice.)

          • My favorite way to kill 'em is drown 'em. Doesn't happen often, but it sure is satisfying!

            I usually go for the "eat them" or "Kill 'em with Stormbringer enough times so I can 1 Hit-KO them with a scalpel" routes, since water isn't common (thankfully).

            For what it's worth: join #nethack on freenode, great place for info and discussions!
        • I've ascended a couple times, I know ;) I got NetHack mixed up w/ another Roguelike and thought Titans were T.

          Honest mistake.

          However, I do think "@ versus %" is very apt, since in the beginning you WILL die from starvation. More so if you play Wizards with 18 int ;)
  • Come on who here hasn't heard of the purple tentacle?

  • Most of the gaming I do anymore is playing SNES games (through ZSNES) or DS or Gameboy games, mostly because 90% of my gaming is in quick 10 to 15 minutes sessions. There are a few things that I've noticed that most of the games I play over and over again have in common.
    First, most of them lack much of a story. I think this works well for replay value because it can become tiresom to sit through the game telling you a story when you've seen it a dozen or more times already. Second is that most of the ga
  • If only because it hasn't been remade. I'm replaying it at the moment, and it still holds up as a solid strategy game.

    It's also just about the only game I played back in the day that doesn't have a modern equivalent - LSN isn't nearly as good, and the only other game I can think of that came close was Fallout (which is also a gooc classic in it's own right). In fact if it weren't for the lack of more recent choices, I probably wouldn't be playing X-com; I don't do the whole "classic" game scene normally.
    • X-Com: UFO is such a good game! I was just ranting about it to someone the other night. I don't think it should make the list, just because it seems to be a less-played title (unfortunately).

      I also think many fans felt betrayed by the X-Com 3 and X-Com 4 sequels. X-Com 2 was still great though, probably because it didn't try to go with what was popular at the time.

      I really want to play X-Com again. Are you using an emulator, or an old DOS-box? Also where can I find it if it's lost in my personal archives?
  • by MaineCoon (12585)
    First 1942, the the Desert Combat mod, and now Battlefield 2 (lets not talk about BF:V).

    Been hooked on this series since the day it came out, and play it regularly, usually about 10-12 hours/week.

    No other game gets my adrenaline up like this one can, and gives me the variety of play I crave. What do I feel like doing this respawn? Take a tank to support the attack? Make a fast assault in a humvee or truck with a couple squadmates? Join in a defense of a flag as a medic or assault? Go sniper and sneak a
  • Star Trek Birth of the Federation, a TBS from 1999 still has me hooked, although the multiplayer support has long been dropped.
    It even has a relatively dedicated (though slow working) group of people developing a sequel that can actually be modded!
    • Totally with you on that one. I recall a few actual multiplayer games I did play that lasted for HOURS. It was cool that if someone dropped out, you could get someone else to take their place.

      There was sort of a constant state of betrayal in that game for multiplayer. You just had no idea if you were being setup or lied to or what was going to happen.

      I also recall that it was on the MS Gaming Zone.

      I should dig it up and put it on my laptop as a time waster. Hey - shoot me an email - matt at braynard dot c

  • by meowsqueak (599208) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @09:34PM (#15469382)
    Neverwinter Nights immediately springs to mind - how long has it been since release, now? Five years? Granted, Atari *just* announced EndOfLife but up until then the support from Bioware has been fantastic.

    The community-constructed modules ("adventures") have definitely made NWN worth coming back to.

  • Starcontrol II (Score:2, Informative)

    by Aaron Denney (123626)
    Now available for free as The Ur-Quan Masters, downloadable from http://sc2.sf.net/ [sf.net] or your distributions packages.
  • At the top of my list for games that have stood the test of time is Heroes of Might and Magic 2. I still play ti occasionaly and ahve friends who play regularily.
  • I still crank up the Homeworld games periodically. They are still fun.
  • 1) Nethack Page Title: @ versus the evil %.
    In Nethack, a % is food. It's not evil. The character they were looking for is & (demon).

    2) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
    The writeup is all about how you're no longer stuck going through linear levels - how now there are items to find, and you can backtrack and unlock previously-locked areas.

    Apparently this author's never heard of Castlevania II: Simon's Quest - released in 1988 - with all of these features.
  • I still play Descent from time to time. It's just fun and scary and these robots have their personality.

    I use D2X-XL [descent2.de] version 1.6.6.

    I tried to play Quake2 in the last month but it was just boring compared to descent, which is older.
    • > I still play Descent from time to time. It's just fun and scary and these robots have their personality.

      between carpal tunnel and lack of time I don't get a chance to play games much any more. But if I did, this is one of the few I'd still play. Even the circa-1996 version of Descent II was a such a good game (especially with teams) that it's still a lot of fun.
  • by acid06 (917409) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:21AM (#15470115)
    Ultima Online is still played *a lot*. There are hundreds of free shards around the globe and the official paid servers are still also online (I doubt they're still profitable, though).

    Then, there's also Quake (yes, the first one). It's still played around the world. Quake mods such as Team Fortress (which paved the way to full modification mods as we see today) and some simpler mods such as Total Destruction are still played and there many active communities for these games.

    Although America's reality is a bit different, these facts are completely true in another countries such as here in Brazil, for example, and maybe in many other developing countries. This is the positive side of not being able to have the latest graphics card or whatever: people don't focus that much on graphics. They worry about fun. That's why UO is specially popular: people can make their own world and play with their friends, with a server hosted on their own machine. Almost any PC can run Ultima Online without problems (I used to play it on a K6-350 with 32MB RAM).

    The culture is really different. The most commercially succesful game here in Brazil currently is Ragnarök, a crappy online RPG. It has terrible mixed 2d/3d graphics and people are still paying to play it. Because everyone can play it. It's not like Half-Life 2 where maybe 10% of the computers can even run it at a barely playable level.
  • X-COM plays great with DOSBOX. I use a frontend to DOSBOX, D-Fend. Yes, X-COM is my all time favorite. It looks outdated, but no other game has equaled its gameplay in 12 years. Some players want a remake with realistic graphics. I don't. I think the cartoonish graphics are better for a game like this. Put realistic graphics into such game, and I'd have nightmares every night.
  • You can still buy AOE 2 with the expansion pack for $40 in stores in Canada, and it's still one of the best RTS's around, which I play regularly. Not bad for a game that was released in 1999.
  • TA is one game that always finds its way back onto my desktop. Especially with the number of mods (Absolute Annihilation in particular). Castlevania: Symphony of the Night isn't far behind.
    • I'm currently rediscovering TA because I looked at TA Spring again and it seems to work well nowadays. Though I haven't found a decent AI for skirmishes yet...
  • by Gabrill (556503) on Monday June 05, 2006 @06:26AM (#15471059)
    I'm still trying new skill combinations.
  • Many years ago, I took the time to actually learn the rules of Minesweeper. To this day, Minesweeper is the first thing I do when I install a new Windows OS. Literally. My first action on the first boot is to register ctrl-alt-m as a keybaord shortcut to minesweeper. I now have a personal best of 57 second on expert. Minesweeper is a game which, once you get hooked, you will never escape from, and never want to.
  • It's still to this day talked about, and it's not even out yet! :-p
  • Best party game, ever. Bombs and dinosaurs. Doesn't get much better than that.

    They also ran the multiplayer game in some weird high-res mode that I've never seen used in another Saturn game, that actually allowed for a map large enough for 8 players (7 human, 1 computer).
  • While it's nice to list some old games that are cool, I think it's kind of silly to try to establish a list or whatsoever of the old games that stood the test of time, because it's such a subjective thing, you can basically take any old game from Spacewar to NBA Live '97 and say "hmmm! this game stood the test of time! it's just as fun to play as when it came out".

    But basically all games are about as fun to play as when they came out, provided that you're inclined to like old games as much as new ones.

  • SNES games seem to have stood the test of time, probably more than any other system, they really were the height of 2D gaming practices. Of course, there continue to be great 2D games (Smash Bros, New Super Mario, Viewtiful Joe), but the concentration of 2D gaming was so great, and so refined at the time, while still being concidered "cutting edge" (let's face it, New Super Mario is a great game, though a lot of it's appeal is nostolgia, not just quality).

    I think one of the main things that SNES games rea

The absent ones are always at fault.

Working...