Tell Me About Some Good Games

Would you recommend picking up Aquaria Drog? I've heard mostly middle-of-the-road to merely okay reviews for it from friends who have played it. But I really like 2D sidescrollers. I played and enjoyed every Castlevania game (even the bad ones) that came out on the Gameboy since Circle of the Moon.

 

I'd definitely recommend Aquaria. Great production values and excellent gameplay. The game starts VERY slow, however. You'll get to the shooting part only after about 40-60 minutes of gameplay. There are several "forms" in the game with different attacks and functions, but you'll mostly be using the shooting form, which makes the combat very similar to various space shmups like Gradius or R-Type. There's also crafting and plenty of secrets, including at least one secret level with completely unique graphics. Collectibles, a "true" ending, etc. Everything to make a Metroidvania fan wet his pants.

There are several frustrating bosses, though. And the overall difficulty is much higher than your average modern game since this was aimed at older gamers who grew up in the 16 bit era. Nothing you won't be able to handle, though.

 

Thanks for all the replies. I'll definitely look into Planescape: Torment and VtM: Redemption; obviously I've heard of them before but they are quite old so unless they're strongly recommended I'm always in two minds as to whether to give them a try or not. And I'll have a looksee at the Indie ones too, keep the cool games coming!

 

Princess Maker 2, anyone?

 

Anyone played Prince of Qin? Classic rpg in classical China. Kung fu, crafting, monsters, magic, and truly delicious dialogue which only gets better with translation.

 

I do not understand this logic. Old games need more recommendation because they are by default of low quality, as opposed to new games which are by default of high quality?

 

I think that is logical, for a given value of quality, ie, graphics. In terms of originality and gameplay experience, new games are by default old games with more pixels and a subscription fee.

 

It's easy to find reviews on new games, I'm not saying that they're by default of better quality but it makes the selection process a bit easier when deciding if you want to buy it or not.

Old games always have worse graphics and can have a sucky interface which makes interacting with the world tedious. If they're strongly recommended I know that the story elements of the game will make it worthwhile to play over any downsides the game may have because it is old, and it saves me the hassle of buying a game I'm unsure of due to lack of information and finding out it's crap. Does this make sense? I don't know why but for some reason the way you phrased your question threw me a little, if I haven't really answered what you were asking properly then that's why.

 

You say that, but when our modern advertising giants like Gamespot started out, they were legitimately reviewing games without being paid, so it is actually easier to find reliable reviews on a game from the 90s than a game from today.

 

Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough for reviews then, I'll see if Gamespot and the like have decent reviews for these. Still a personal recommendation is always good as you know that out of all the games they've played that one stands out, which swings my opinion more to the side of buying it than not if I'm unsure.

EDIT: They do have some pretty lengthy reviews, thanks for pointing this out to me. Also another fun game I remember is the original Deus Ex, it's pretty sweet.

 

Planescape: Torment is a classic, play it. Be prepared to read a lot, though.

VtM: Redemption, on the other hand, is just a linear dungeon crawler with absolutely awful party AI and Diablo like combat (you click on enemies until they die). Awfully written dialog with absolutely inappropriate thee's and thou's everywhere, minimum choices and interactivity. Only play it if you're a VtM nut.

 

Yeah that seemed like the consensus from the Gamespot reviews I read too, I'll order a copy of Planescape: Torment today and give it a go. From screenshots that are up the graphics aren't as bad as what I though they might be either.

 

Can't agree with that sentence of yours there. By saying that (where "that" = more advanced, yet, might I point out, not necessarily better graphics and a possible subscription fee) is the (only) difference, you suggest that other than that, the originality and gameplay experience of older and newer games are equal.

I am of the opinion that newer games generally tend to provide inferior levels of originality and gameplay experience compared to older ones.

 

Okay, lessee which old games I can reccommend...

Whales Voyage is a lot of fun, unfortunately it hasn't got mouse support, so that might lessen your fun.

Companions of Xanth is an adventure game taking place inside a game (long before dotHack did it).

Realms of Arcania is a pretty fun game which reminds me a little of such games as Wizardry or Albion, but set in the DSA universe.

...And then some.

Basically, with old games you can often find interesting and original gameplay concepts which would be awesome in a modern game where technology allows for huge worlds and varied settings.

 

That is what I meant to say. The modern games are generally an older game revamped but with a lesser gameplay experience.

Oh ah, they don't make games like they did in our day.

As Einstein said to Schrodinger: "Just as many a young whore becomes a praying nun, so do many young revolutionaries become aging reactionaries."

 

Oregon Trail is a personal favourite of mine.

 

I know absolutely nothing about VtM, and disliked the second game, which I tried first, and still enjoyed it. Granted, I gave myself a migraine raging in the one daylight level until I figured out you could tell your brain dead companions to not move at all, ever. Also, if thee's and thou's piss you off in game that takes place around 1100-1200, you must REALLY hate Thee's and thou's.

And calling the combat Diablo-like is like calling X-com's combat Dead Space-like. Yeah, you're killing aliens in both, but that's pretty much it. Yeah, you click enemies to attack, but that's pretty much it. Redemption is far more tactical, you don't just go around dashing between large groups of enemies constantly and throwing volcanoes every 3 seconds. Yes, the AI is terrible and broken in spots. Both for your allies, and enemies. I'm not saying it is a jaw-dropping example of excellence, but I thoroughly enjoyed it; I am a bit of a sucker for damsel-in-distress stories though.

I can see how some people might legitimately dislike it, But it was made in 2000. They were just starting to prod the whole 3-d action RPG genre. If you can't get past some bad AI and a mostly Linear game, then yes, its not for you. Personally the writing wasn't horrible for me. Sure, it wasn't a masterpiece, but it wasn't horrible. My suggestion: Watch a gameplay video or two, there should be some on youtube. If you don't like the look of it, don't buy it.

Also, taking a brief look at reviews, they seem mostly positive, ranging mostly from 7-10/70-100 etc.

 

It's not the use of thee and thou that was wrong with Redemption, it was that the verbs were occasionally improperly conjugated when thee and thou were used.

There are no tactics in Redemption. Max out your Strength and Dexterity then Blood buff, potence, and slice away. It's very Diablo-like, if you define Diablo-like as maxing out 2 or 3 abilities and charging into hordes of mindless NPCs.



That said I did thoroughly enjoy Redemption, but I still think Bloodlines was a better game.

 

It is definitely a game with some flaws. I just.. I don't know. I could never get into Bloodlines. Its just been so long I can't really recall what it was, just a general feeling of... meh.