I've even played a version of the original Rogue. Nethack and Brogue are my preferred rogue-likes. The term rougelike has been watered down so much it means many different things to many different people.
I do however have a hard time nostalging over old games I used to love - mainly for screen resolution issues. Once you get the new space/bling its hard to go back. I do like some of the remasters though, but some have been done so poorly or so identically they're almost meaningless.
Its a bit of a quandry. I played the Command and Conquer remaster for a bit, and it looked nice/resized nice and played well until you realised it had the same @#%ing pathfinding bugs - which is authentic to the original, but to me an opportunity to improve so missed it made me lose interest in continuing playing the remaster.
I can't even comprehend how young people would view old games, there'd be a few hipster types into the equivalent of cassettes, but for the most part old games are the equivalent of phones that can only be used if they're attached to the wall of the house, though they are a few exceptions to this that seem universal such as Tetris.
I think there are some great games out there that aren't successful, and a lot of games that are more succesful than they deserve to be. A lot of longer lasting franchises from Diablo, to Call of Duty and recently Civilization are averaging down, not up.
As a 50+ year old, the OG posters pachinko type game has no attraction and seems way to ADHD for me to deal with, let alone associating it with rogue/rouge-likes.
I also tried to like Dwarf Fortress, but there's too much complexity too early (same is true for a lot of games coming out now). I miss the era of well designed tutorial levels that introduce and build on previous levels before you get to 'open, anything goes' levels of complexity. Even minecraft has (had?) this built-in by design originally.
The original rouge/rogue-like games all worked well because of the difficulty curve ramping up so nicely as you progress to deeper dungeon levels, although reading the source or alt.nethack was kind of spoilerish.
The world is different now. Because we're so connected, we follow online 'recipes' on how to play the game so we don't get 'left behind' rather than immerse our individual selves via experimentation.
Also what makes a game great is going to vary from individual to individual. Some love puzzle games, some hate them. Some like twitchy FPS games, some like strategical slow-play FPS games etc. etc.
> it had the same @#%ing pathfinding bugs - which is authentic to the original, but to me an opportunity to improve so missed it made me lose interest in continuing playing the remaster.
Remasters/Remakes are often a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the developers.
If they make the game function exactly like the old one, just with an updated skin, people complain that it's all they did.
If they fix bugs and update mechanics for a modern audience, people complain that it isn't the same game at all, just a similar story being told through a different game.
Especially with RTS games, some like the simulation, some like the interface to the simulation.
I never understood StarCraft 2. I thought "you know you can zoom out further in other games, and other games have better controls--you StarCraft players do know this, right?"
I now understand that StarCraft 2 is a game about interacting with an interface, and it's good at it, the interface feels good. It was never about the largest battles or the widest camera angle.
I do however have a hard time nostalging over old games I used to love - mainly for screen resolution issues. Once you get the new space/bling its hard to go back. I do like some of the remasters though, but some have been done so poorly or so identically they're almost meaningless.
Its a bit of a quandry. I played the Command and Conquer remaster for a bit, and it looked nice/resized nice and played well until you realised it had the same @#%ing pathfinding bugs - which is authentic to the original, but to me an opportunity to improve so missed it made me lose interest in continuing playing the remaster.
I can't even comprehend how young people would view old games, there'd be a few hipster types into the equivalent of cassettes, but for the most part old games are the equivalent of phones that can only be used if they're attached to the wall of the house, though they are a few exceptions to this that seem universal such as Tetris.
I think there are some great games out there that aren't successful, and a lot of games that are more succesful than they deserve to be. A lot of longer lasting franchises from Diablo, to Call of Duty and recently Civilization are averaging down, not up.
As a 50+ year old, the OG posters pachinko type game has no attraction and seems way to ADHD for me to deal with, let alone associating it with rogue/rouge-likes.
I also tried to like Dwarf Fortress, but there's too much complexity too early (same is true for a lot of games coming out now). I miss the era of well designed tutorial levels that introduce and build on previous levels before you get to 'open, anything goes' levels of complexity. Even minecraft has (had?) this built-in by design originally.
The original rouge/rogue-like games all worked well because of the difficulty curve ramping up so nicely as you progress to deeper dungeon levels, although reading the source or alt.nethack was kind of spoilerish.
The world is different now. Because we're so connected, we follow online 'recipes' on how to play the game so we don't get 'left behind' rather than immerse our individual selves via experimentation.
Also what makes a game great is going to vary from individual to individual. Some love puzzle games, some hate them. Some like twitchy FPS games, some like strategical slow-play FPS games etc. etc.