/vr/ - Retro Games

>>3527635
What then is the point of playing something you KNOW you'll succeed in? There's an old Twilight Zone episode where a criminal goes to the afterlife thinking it's heaven. He is given anything and everything he wants and he cannot fail at anything—especially his favorite pastime, gambling.. Clearly he's not in heaven—after months upon years of nothing but success he spirals into ennui and depression; there's no challenge in anything, his own personal hell is immense boredom.

This is how I feel about the state of the current games market.

Retro games demanded of the player to be better. They demanded the player not only travel through the game's levels but to master the controls as well. You didn't just need to know what buttons to push to jump or run, but you have to be able to feel every aspect of your character and their world; know their speed, the timing of their attacks, their hitbox size and location, the weight of their jumps, and much more. You had to “git gud.”

A common old game I see people shitting on is Ice Climber with the most common issue being the character not landing on platform edges. This is something one learns from putting in time with controlling the character. There's a definite landing zone but it exists a few pixels into a platform instead of right at the edges as one would expect. After getting used to the feel of this, Ice Climber becomes very playable and pretty enjoyable once the difficulty ramps up.

Another series of games is the old Castlevania titles. People call the movement limiting, the attacks slow, and the deaths cheap. I won't bother describing how wrong these beliefs are because at this point these games have a following big enough that someone else can explain it.