Games you went back to and realized they were not good

[TSTR]

Golden Eye is pretty bad, and it's not even much of a time thing. Quake, Half Life, Doom are about as old if not older and they're much better games.

Yeah, I kind of agree. It's still fun with other people if you just roll with the suck, though.

[Xeogred]

Mass Effect I'm playing through the trilogy on PS3 and I have to say it feels pretty meh . Could just be a bad port though sound effects seem a little off, controls feel a little stiff, and graphics are pretty horrible unless you really love the massive amount of film grain they used to cover up the so so textures and lack of AA.

Really I remember this being a pretty solid game on par with Kotor but it just isn't really grabbing me this time around. Going to push my self through it and hope that Mass Effect 2 & 3 are a little more polished.

Well that was back during the BROWN era when the licensed Unreal engine sucked ass yet everyone was using it. Bad textures popups, muddy textures, glitches, etc. Terrible.

Go and try play the first Dead Rising... looks freaking terrible to me. PS2 games look better, lol.

[Ack]

Golden Eye is pretty bad, and it's not even much of a time thing. Quake, Half Life, Doom are about as old if not older and they're much better games.

Yeah, I kind of agree. It's still fun with other people if you just roll with the suck, though.

Admittedly though you're also comparing one of the first truly successful attempts at putting the FPS genre on a consequence versus the top tier names of the PC in the mid-90s. Thanks to Quake and then by Half-Life, the genre is pretty much standardized in how it controls and plays.

Does that mean Golden Eye is easy to go back to? Well, I haven't played it recently, but if my last run of Turok 2 multiplayer was anything to go by, no, I assume it has not aged well.

[Kuruwin]

Mass Effect I'm playing through the trilogy on PS3 and I have to say it feels pretty meh . Could just be a bad port though sound effects seem a little off, controls feel a little stiff, and graphics are pretty horrible unless you really love the massive amount of film grain they used to cover up the so so textures and lack of AA.

Really I remember this being a pretty solid game on par with Kotor but it just isn't really grabbing me this time around. Going to push my self through it and hope that Mass Effect 2 & 3 are a little more polished.

Was planning to go through it again on PC and then move into 2 & 3, but it didn't seem to like my graphics card was running at a good frame rate maxed out but there was screen tearing even with vysnc on . So I decided I would go the PS3 route since I've been wanting to grab the trilogy boxset anyways.

The gunplay get's better in the second game and the loyalty quests are nice but otherwise it's just more the same. When the second came out back in the day it looked really good but the graphics certainly haven't aged well. Third game probably still look's good though.

[Xeogred]

Golden Eye is pretty bad, and it's not even much of a time thing. Quake, Half Life, Doom are about as old if not older and they're much better games.

Yeah, I kind of agree. It's still fun with other people if you just roll with the suck, though.

Admittedly though you're also comparing one of the first truly successful attempts at putting the FPS genre on a consequence versus the top tier names of the PC in the mid-90s. Thanks to Quake and then by Half-Life, the genre is pretty much standardized in how it controls and plays.

Does that mean Golden Eye is easy to go back to? Well, I haven't played it recently, but if my last run of Turok 2 multiplayer was anything to go by, no, I assume it has not aged well.

Well said. I can confirm I don't think Goldeneye is fun to go back to at all, but I definitely don't think it can be dismissed so easily. It definitely has a historical place in what it did for the genre.

[Fragems]

Another thing about Mass Effect is the tutorial sucks. There were random pop ups during the first level but that was about it and if you hit a button to fast the tutorial pop up vanished before you could even read it. I still don't know all the controls and they don't have a lay out in the menu just the oddball options like southpaw and etc. with no explanation of what buttons change when switching .

Controls do feel a little better on a controller but it's taking a bit of getting use to since the movement system is a little annoying with running/cover being restricted to combat scenarios or at least that's what it feels like .

[Erik_Twice]

I had a bunch of friends who loved Goldeneye growing up and say that they would love to play it again but they can't get over the control scheme.

True, I guess a game can still be considered "good" for its time, yet not age well. Whereas another can be thought of as "good" at some point, and then you realize it was just complete shit to begin with.

Yes, exactly. For me the reason to make the thread was not so much what is or isn't a good game, but what games people have had a turnaround on and why.

[3DSStrider]

Never played Goldeneye back in the day, (It came out a year before I was born) but it's a fun game once you get past the controls.
And the framerate.
And the weird aiming system.
And the cryptic mission objectives.
Yeah, it's dated as hell. But it's fun once you get used to it. I still wouldn't play it immediately after playing Quake on a modern computer at 120 fps in 1080p.

As a kid I loved the Sonic series (and I still do) but the Adventure era games aren't quite as good as they used to be.
I think Sonic Adventure unfairly gets a lot of flak, but I'll freely admit that it hasn't aged well. I think that some of it's flaws can be forgiven because of it was the first truly 3D Sonic game. Plus it has one of the best video game soundtracks I've ever heard.
Sonic Adventure 2 had a lot of bad design decisions and a storyline that seemed well-written when I was eight, but in retrospect it's full of plotholes. The Chao garden needs to return though.
Sonic Heroes is even worse. The characters move as if their shoes were banana peels dipped in oil. The levels are repetitive and the characters are annoying and won't shut up. Plus they left out the Chao garden.
Shadow the Hedgehog was the coolest thing ever when I was eight, but nowadays the attempts to be hip are just laughably pathetic. I don't think the gameplay is as bad as some people make it out to be, but being forced to play the first level ten times to get the true ending is awful.
Sonic 2006 is a game that I legitimately have nostalgia for. Crazy, I know. Obviously I can't defend this game, (except for the music, which is amazing as Sonic music usually is) and I haven't played it in years and frankly it can stay that way.

[TSTR]

Blades of Steel

THEM'S FIGHTING WORDS

EXCEPT WE CAN ONLY HIT EACH OTHER 5 TIMES BEFORE ONE OF US GETS DRAGGED TO THE BOX

[Xeogred]

I had a bunch of friends who loved Goldeneye growing up and say that they would love to play it again but they can't get over the control scheme.

True, I guess a game can still be considered "good" for its time, yet not age well. Whereas another can be thought of as "good" at some point, and then you realize it was just complete shit to begin with.

Yes, exactly. For me the reason to make the thread was not so much what is or isn't a good game, but what games people have had a turnaround on and why.

Yeah, probably due to going back to a single joystick layout haha.

On the flipside, I think the first dual joystick FPS I played was Timesplitters, and it was ultra weird at first. But... fast forward to now and it's second nature.