Crappy games from back then that aren't that bad now

[Anonymous No.8913716]

Basically, games that are/were considered terrible at release. Also possibly because they're not worth the full price they were asking for. But for cheap/free nowadays? There's probably way worse to play, some of them could even be pretty fun
For example, the first Home Alone on Snes. I bought it randomly years ago in a store for 5$ and I definitely got 5$ of fun out of that. Game is relatively easy and short, I would have been pissed getting that as a 10-12 years old. But for 5$? It's not terrible. I replay it every few years

[Anonymous No.8913848]

Probably most of the stuff that's been on AVGN at some point. I'm still waiting to try my hands at a 3DO game, maybe Watara Supervision. Even Virtual Boy is surprisingly fun on a regular screen, pic related

[Anonymous No.8913867]

>>8913716
The issue isn't so much cash now but time. In the age where you can obtain basically any game out there for free, why would you spend your time playing Home Alone for the SNES when you could play a better game? And no, you haven't already played every good game out there.

[Anonymous No.8913898]

>>8913867
While you might be right about Home Alone itself, I've found that people in general tends to just gravitate towards "BEST EVER" or extremely popular stuff that is then expected to be very good (TV shows, anime, games, etc) and then tends to miss fun stuff, great experience, or maybe a future personal favorite better there's "always better"
I feel that the "always better" thing is some extremely strange rabbit hole, especially due to how wild people's tastes tend to differ between absolutely everyone
In the end, are you really a big video games enthusiast (supposedly, this board) if you don't even play/experience lower-tier stuff like this?

[Anonymous No.8914369]

>>8913867
>chosing what games to play based on people's "BEST EVER" lists
>not looking up full libraries and making a list of what looks interesting and finding out by yourself

ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.8914385]

Is this eurojank, op? Because it looks like an Amiga game.

[Anonymous No.8914398]

>>8913898
>>8914369
Not talking about trying out games. Talking about playing them to completion, which means devoting time because unless you save scum, you're going to need to spend at least a little time getting good. For a lot of games, that's just not worth the time because they aren't any good or fun to play.

[Anonymous No.8914425]

>>8914369
I don't, but so many people does and misses out on good stuff
>>8914398
Well, that depends entirely on the game. Home Alone for example, you'll need very little of any of that. Getting good on some lesser games can be fun too. Obviously, there's games it's just not worth it or you just gotta be in the right mood for it
>>8914385
It seems that about most of the developers for this are American (including the Snes ver). There is a DOS and Amiga ver but the wiki made it sound a little different

[Anonymous No.8914440]

>>8914425
I personally wouldn't bother playing Home Alone on the SNES because it's just not a fun game. But if you want to go for it, go for it.
I actually played Home Alone on the NES and got good enough I could beat it without exploiting the glitch, so hey, I get picking up a game nobody else really seems to like because it's not that great and mastering it to completion. Just saying, what stops people from doing it isn't cash but time plus a lack of interest in some turd game that isn't that fun to play.

[Anonymous No.8914447]

>>8913716
You could play these games for $5 or even less back in the day. It was called rentals. And yeah, kids rented games like Home Alone.

[Anonymous No.8914463]

>>8914369
>not looking up full libraries and making a list of what looks interesting and finding out by yourself
This is how I usually do it nowadays, only way to find certain games that are otherwise rarely discussed, especially if I want to play games in a specific genre or a more obscure console

>>8914398
To be fair, even with popular games, you need to at least try them first before doing that. Then when you find a game you really enjoy, you can try playing it to the end, doing casual runs here and there, etc.

[Anonymous No.8914479]

>>8914463
Sure, you're going to try any game first. But with popular games, usually they're popular for a reason: because they're fun. There are some hidden gems (although a lot of those have been popularized today) but for the most part, and nostalgia goggles definitely are a thing, but at the end of the day, playing an older game from start to finish (without save scumming) is an investment of time, and most people just aren't going to invest time in shitty games that are no fun for them to play. Again, I don't expect people to play Home Alone for the NES to completion because I realize, for most people, it's not a good game even though I liked it enough to bother completing it multiple times.

[Anonymous No.8914691]

>>8913716
As newer games on average get shittier and more focused on DLC/streaming/multiplayer, even bad games from older gens improve comparatively.

For example, a "boring" game like Picross is now something I treasure for its uniqueness and unpretentious quality. I know Picross is a series lots of people enjoy, I don't mean to say that it isn't good, only that it stands more now than before.

Similarly, Survival Kids was never crappy, but was considered a 7 when it was new, and is more like a 9 or 10 now, especially considering how it predicted a massively popular genre.

[Anonymous No.8914751]

Obligatory

[Anonymous No.8914801]

>>8914751
The fuck? This wasn't considered crappy. No, your school bully doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.8914841]

>>8914398
>>8914447
The ability to save scum encourages dumb people to complete every single game they start because they can. Also to "complete" every game on some bullshit MUST PLAY list from the internet.
With game rentals if you didn't like something you'd just never buy it or rent it again. But you might spend more time playing a shit game than it deserves because you put down money and as a kid don't understand the sunk cost fallacy.

[Anonymous No.8914949]

>>8913716
Video game rentals existed. You could have rented Home Alone for five bucks or less really back in the day and played it. I did. Wasn’t a particularly fun game but whatever. Can’t imagine having any great need to ever own a physical copy of it unless you’re a collector.

[Anonymous No.8915106]

>>8914801
If you don't think that MM was very divisive and heavily criticized when it was first released then you probably weren't alive then. Like most Zelda games the Zeldautists eventually accepted it and praised it as the greatest in the series.

[Anonymous No.8916615]

>>8915106
Divisive doesn't mean crappy and doesn't make a consensus.

[Anonymous No.8917182]

I rented Home Alone for 99 cents when I was a kid.
I did not get 99 cents worth of fun. That game sucks dick.

[Anonymous No.8917623]

>>8916615
The people who didn't like it thought it was crappy. Unless you think that by you giving your opinion that it isn't that in fact makes something that's subjective somehow factual.

[Anonymous No.8917634]

>>8917182
Are you insane? That's a great deal! I don't know of a single whore that would suck dicks for 99 cents!