Getting into 'barren' early 3D games

[dogman91]

I'm really hoping my opinion will change the more I give these games a chance, but I'm finding that I'm having a REAL hard time getting into Tomb Raider for instance... the game appears at first glance to be based on environmental puzzle solving with a point A to B objective, but with barely any music, empty/confusing environment (thanks to the textures and clipping and such) and tank controls I'm not finding it FUN to wander around and check every inch of the game world for secrets and such, which also happens to be the point of the game. I feel like if I'm preferring instead to find the end of the level as quick as possible then I'm not really getting the most out of the game. At least that's how it is right now with the first couple levels just getting into it; but with similar games I've played like Ocarina of Time I found it was fun right from the start to explore, with also better music and character interactions. I also loved Resident Evil right from the start (and all the way to the end) so I know it isn't necessarily the tank controls, and I also loved Spyro, Banjo-Kazooie, Super Mario 64, Crash and other cartoony platformers from that era. Tomb Raider just feels so bland/empty in comparison though that I'm starting to wonder what everyone was thinking when reviewing this game back in the day.

I also tried getting into Body Harvest and I found the controls and bland music/objectives to be really irksome... also the layout was confusing; especially that weird map... knowing these are super influential games though I feel like I should play these and give them a chance but so far I'm not feeling it... am I looking at this the wrong way?

[RyaNtheSlayA]

Early 3D games have generally aged horrifically. The ones on PC fair a bit better, but as a general rule the large majority of them are frustrating to play and/or incredibly headache inducing to look at.

[BurningDoom]

Early 3D games have generally aged horrifically. The ones on PC fair a bit better, but as a general rule the large majority of them are frustrating to play and/or incredibly headache inducing to look at.

I'd say early 3D platformers and action games, specifically. The camera back then was terrible for them, and two-directional inputs really helped the controls later on.

But early 3D RPGs, racing games, fighting games, space-ship shooters (like Rogue Squadron, Descent, Colony Wars, etc.), I think play just fine. I also loved the early 3D light-guns shooters like Time Crisis, Area 51, and Virtua Cop. And in the case of Resident Evil and it's clones at least, the tank-controls work perfectly to add to the atmosphere of the game.

[Menegrothx]

It depends on the genre and game. Some early 3D games have aged well, others haven't. It's really a test of time. If the game was only just impressive technologically back in the day, it sucks today, but if it also played well, it still plays just as good.

I personally have never gotten past the 2nd level in Tomb Raider 1. Some ugly looking 3D games from around the same time period instantly drew me in and I enjoyed playing them. But I haven't played the original Tomb Raider games from start to finish (I intend to do so some day), so I can't say if they're really aged poorly or not.

Resident Evil used pre-rendered backgrounds (I really miss these btw) so I don't really count em as real 3D games. Everything except the characters look nice. Silent Hill 1 and System Shock 2 were true 3D.

[Anayo]

I like how Duke Nukem 3D and Doom have aged pretty well.

[Jrecee]

Jumping flash has aged well due to its simplicity.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Jumping flash has aged well due to its simplicity.

That...plus the fact that there is no other game like it (besides Jumping Flash 2).

I played through it recently and really had a good time. The "vertigo" you get from jumping hundreds of feet into the air is great.

[Gunstar Green]

My favorite early 3D games are simulation stuff like MechWarrior 2.

For the most part they just didn't figure out how to do the controls and camera yet and a lot of games suffered for it. I think first person games fared a lot better due to the lack of camera issues. That's why stuff like Quake and the previously mentioned simulator games can still kind-of hold up today.

PC games also had the advantage of having a mouse and keyboard which made more complicated 3D games possible and playable. Consoles would take a while longer to figure out how to handle it.

[brunoafh]

I don't really have a problem going back to any early 3D games. I generally don't have any issues with them having aged poorly. Visuals are easily forgiven, and adjusting to controls just takes some patience so long as it isn't a trainwreck.

Tomb Raider though, I have never liked, and thought was pretty bad since it came out. Not really a case of aging poorly, just a case of a game that isn't and was never very good. 3D or not is irrelevant.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I call the 5th gen the "awkward" stage of gaming. Never cared for titles like Tomb Raider, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, etc... They're slow and clunky and a chore to play. Give me an RPG with pre-rendered backgrounds any day.