Time-Tested Gaming

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."

What's the big deal about Nethack?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Civ II

[cwernli]

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...

Other choices?

[Clazzy]

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.

Recurring theme; Use your brain!

[B5_geek]

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.

Re:Duke 3D and 2D artwork

[Babbster]

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 as we can still appreciate the graphics of Chrono Trigger today.

Re: YASD

[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 sadistic asshat decided it should be possible to fail. It's like a poorly written choose your own adventure where 99% of the choices are wrong.

In the real life and also in games I consider fun, 99% of choices lead to non-negative outcomes. (* Note that I make a distinction between positive and non-negative.)

Sorry for the rant, but I had to vent somewhere.

Re:One glaring omission

[edwdig]

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.

Re: YASD

[Chris Mattern]

> 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