Topic: Retro games - just as fun as modern games

[Tobbebobbe]

Believe it or not, but I actually played Mario Bros. the other day. No, not Super Mario Bros. Mario Bros. A really old game that doesn't even have scrolling screens or power ups. In the beginning, I didn't enjoy it very much, after all, all you do is knocking down fleas and turtles in the sewer. Next stage: repeat.


But when the stages got harder, I found Mario Bros. to be increasingly challenging but also satisfying. Even though it's so simple, you need to fully concentrate in order to avoid the fireballs and icicles. You get that "hardcore" feeling that you're really into a game and I kept playing it for a couple of hours! Only reason to keep playing such a simple game for that long was to hunt for a new high score. No achievements. No unlockable weapons or suits. No reward. Not even an ending. Even then, it was a blast to play, and that made me realize something.


When you're really enjoying the gameplay, graphics and story have minimum importance. It could be Mario Bros. HD, which would of course have looked better, but it wouldn't have been more fun to play. Not when you're into it. A good story and great graphics can draw you into a game, but if the gameplay base isn't fun, then it doesn't matter.


What a good story mostly do in games is to provide reasons to keep playing when the gameplay can't keep you interested. Admit it, how many people play Final Fantasy or Mass Effect because of the gameplay? Most people play these kind of games because they are curious about the story. "All right, let's suffer through this sequence too" is not unusual to hear from RPG players when they're advancing through the story.


And when you think about it, some genres haven't changed its gameplay very much the last 15 or so years. Racing games are an exception. But seriously, I don't see much difference in adventure games or action games. The gameplay may be more advanced in certain ways, but today's games don't play drastically different from past games.


My point is, when you're "into" a game, neither graphics or story matter very much. They're only there to draw you in, but many of today's games completely relies on story and visuals to keep the players motivated. A game like Mario Bros. is not very good at drawing you in, which is also why the younger generation can't accept it - it takes way too long time before something "interesting" happens (before the difficulty is increased to make the gameplay interesting).

[broodwars]

For me, the enjoyment of an old game is radically dependent on the original quality of the game and what system it came from.  It's not just the dramatically inferior production values of the old consoles that are problematic.  We've made immense improvements in game design as well, which makes modern games much more fair and enjoyable to play, especially in short sessions.  For example, remember the days when your success in a platformer was dependent on how well you memorized the level?  Nowadays, unless you're playing a Megaman game, you don't have to worry about a bird swooping in to knock you into a pit when you try to jump over it, or to remember to hold left as you fall down a blind chasm because there are spikes that will appear on the right.  You don't have to worry about losing 4 hours of progress and having to start the entire game over if you make one small mistake at the end of a game, because we have save points and checkpoints.  Unless you're playing a Dragon Quest game (whose gameplay evolutions are so glacial in nature you might as well be playing an NES game), RPGs don't really do random encounters anymore; in many RPGs save points are plentiful if not completely at the player's discretion; and battle systems tend to be more complex than just selecting commands in turn-based menus.
 
We simply make games better now than we did 15 years ago.  They're designed better, they have better production values, and they have more added value and the potential for expansion via DLC.  Some retro games hold up better than most, particularly from the SNES era, and there are many games from the past (like Chrono Trigger) I can have as much fun playing today as I did originally.  However, if given the choice between playing a game from the NES era and playing a modern game in the same genre, I'll take the modern game almost every time.

[Ian Sane]

I disagree with broodwars that we make games better now.  I think in many ways we do but it is not universal.  I think a lot of today's games have too much padding, they rely too much on showing the cool parts in cutscenes instead of letting the player experience them himself, and there is too much hand-holding.  But there is a lot less bullshit difficulty or frustrating limitations.

One thing with difficulty is that I think games are much more fair to the player in terms of skill requirements.  But they dumb-down the thinking portions.  There are too many hints and too often they just blatantly tell you the answer.  It's like now Super Metroid removed a lot of the bullshit difficulty of the original game.  They added a map and made it so you could shoot in all directions and when you died you didn't start with only a fraction of health.  The sequel just made things more user friendly.  They got rid of the parts where the game blatantly screwed with you.  In later Metroid sequels however they dumbed down some of the "good" difficulty by telling you where to go next and making the game more linear.  Having to figure out where to go was not bullshit difficulty.  You had a user-friendly map and you had to think.  They have overcompensated in later games.  They removed the bullshit difficulty and reached the series' peak and then fucked it all up by removing the legitimate challenges.  I think there is a major difference between a challenging game and a hard one and modern game design rarely distinguishes between the two.  I think we've fixed some things but have broken some other things along the way.

The retro games that I still play are typically ones that I find virtually zero fault in.  Something like Super Mario World has essentially no flaws.  It is the peak of 2D Mario as all the rough spots have been ironed out but no new problems have been introduced.  I'll go back and play that game all the time.  It doesn't frustrate me in any way.  I don't have to go to an example as modern as the SNES.  I think Joust is a perfect game and I'll play that every once in a while.  Tetris was perfect until some unnecessary tinkering ruined it.

One thing about retro games is often that I don't trust modern attempts at retro design.  They will introduce modern ideas that I think ruin the game.  It's probably just because for that type of game the concept has already been refined to near perfection.  Therefore introducing modern elements just fucks it up.  You can't fix what isn't broke.  2D games are a lot less complex than 3D games so I think that 2D was able to be refined to near perfection much quicker.  3D has so many variables that it is harder to not have some camera problem or something like that.

The best games, retro or modern, have tremendous value.  That doesn't mean padding a game with filler or achievements to make it longer.  The value is based on what the player gets out of it.  A two hour game is fine if the gameplay is so fun to have near endless replay value or if those two hours are so damn awesome to the player that he feels it was worth paying 50 bucks for and that he may replay the game again at some point in the future.  An 80 hour game where the player enjoys every minute has tremendous value but one where the player feels like he has to slog through filler does not.  I find I am more likely to replay an older game, not because they're shorter or better, but because they have better pacing.  I don't want to replay a long game if I know that half of it is a chore to play.  I will come back to any game that is consistenly enjoyable from start to finish.  So I won't come back to a short retro game with bullshit difficulty or a long modern game with tons of filler and padding.  Different eras have different flaws and the games that avoid those flaws are the ones that hold up for decades.

[broodwars]

If you don't like the hints in the Prime games, you can simply turn them off, Ian.  Other M's a different story, of course, but you can still turn them off in the Prime games.  That's the thing about modern games: if you don't like aids, you can often remove them.  If you find a game too easy, you can up the difficulty or the game may sometimes adjust its own difficulty according to your actions.  If you have trouble with Donkey Kong Country Returns, you can use the Super Guide.  If you don't need or want that tool, you can simply ignore it.

[Ian Sane]

That's the thing about modern games: if you don't like aids, you can often remove them.  If you find a game too easy, you can up the difficulty or the game may sometimes adjust its own difficulty according to your actions.  If you have trouble with Donkey Kong Country Returns, you can use the Super Guide.  If you don't need or want that tool, you can simply ignore it.

In theory this makes sense but in real life it just doesn't work this way enough of the time.  Options are not always available when they should be.  Hell, as Nintendo fans we should be well aware of that.  I could never turn off Navi bugging my ass in Zelda.  That's poor design in my mind and it is something that was rarely seen in older games.
 
In retro games a common problem was that it seemed like the game designers were openly against the player.  You wanted the player to fail and the design came from quarter-sucking arcade machines.  Now I think it's the opposite where devs are too afraid to offend the player.  "If we don't hold his hand the whole time he won't buy our game!"  The irony is that anyone with half-a-brain knows to look on the internet for the solution to any puzzle in a game that they can't figure out themselves.  There is less of a need than ever to tell the player exactly what to do the whole time.
 
What I would like to see is a game designer that looks at how we do things and steps back and determines what was a good step forward and what wasn't and then makes their games based on what they learn.  If it was a good step you keep it.  If it was a bad step you either go back and do it the old way or if the old way is also no good you come up with what the next step SHOULD have been.  I want them to look at gaming as a whole and cherry pick the stuff that worked and then strive to improve on the stuff that we've never really gotten right.
 
The way I see it things have not truly improved but have merely stayed level.  The improvements are balanced out by the good conventions that have been lost over time.

[MaryJane]

The SNES might be the greatest system ever, and a few games I have been playing on it are:

Earthbound, which except for the ending might be my favorite RPG ever.

LttP, my second favorite Zelda after OoT.

Breath of Fire 1&2, solid RPGs with an interesting dragon dynamic.

Chrono Trigger, the name says it all I think. It's an RPG I have played at least 6 times, and am looking forward to playing again.

Obviously I am an RPG lover, which is why I love the SNES, and I also think that RPGs age particularly well.

[ThePerm]

Navi was never really that intrusive, she just gave you **** every once in a while.

[Retro Deckades]

3D has so many variables that it is harder to not have some camera problem or something like that.

I have to touch upon this point of Ian's. I find retro games very enjoyable precisely because I don't have to worry about a 3D camera -- I can simply play the game without having to manage it.

[Tobbebobbe]

For me, the enjoyment of an old game is radically dependent on the original quality of the game and what system it came from.  It's not just the dramatically inferior production values of the old consoles that are problematic.  We've made immense improvements in game design as well, which makes modern games much more fair and enjoyable to play, especially in short sessions.  For example, remember the days when your success in a platformer was dependent on how well you memorized the level?  Nowadays, unless you're playing a Megaman game, you don't have to worry about a bird swooping in to knock you into a pit when you try to jump over it, or to remember to hold left as you fall down a blind chasm because there are spikes that will appear on the right.  You don't have to worry about losing 4 hours of progress and having to start the entire game over if you make one small mistake at the end of a game, because we have save points and checkpoints.  Unless you're playing a Dragon Quest game (whose gameplay evolutions are so glacial in nature you might as well be playing an NES game), RPGs don't really do random encounters anymore; in many RPGs save points are plentiful if not completely at the player's discretion; and battle systems tend to be more complex than just selecting commands in turn-based menus.
 
We simply make games better now than we did 15 years ago.  They're designed better, they have better production values, and they have more added value and the potential for expansion via DLC.  Some retro games hold up better than most, particularly from the SNES era, and there are many games from the past (like Chrono Trigger) I can have as much fun playing today as I did originally.  However, if given the choice between playing a game from the NES era and playing a modern game in the same genre, I'll take the modern game almost every time.

I understand what you mean but I don't think I fully agree. Most old games were so short they had to be though in order to last longer than a day. However, what some people here sees as "bullshit difficulty", I see as a great challenge. Take Ghosts n Goblins for example. You need to repeat every level again and again, especially level 3 and level 6, but what happens in the process? You improve at the game. You feel like you have more control and you're actually becoming a better gamer. Few of today's games can achieve that feeling because they're designed in a way to only let the player "enjoy", not "fight". I like to fight. To get virtually kicked in the teeth and then give it another try. In that process, there's a distinct feeling buliding up inside. For some gamers, that feeling stops at "frustrating" because they give up too soon. For others, "frustrating" turns into "bliss" and "joy" when you finally win the fight.


Some of today's games have that brute difficculty of old days, but most games are made to be "enjoyed", not much different from a movie. Personally, I like to chew my food before I swallow it. Of course, if you don't have a true passion for videogames, or have very limited time, then I completely understand it's hard to get into old games like Ghosts n Goblins without getting frustrated.

[MaryJane]

I've never played Ghosts n Goblins, but I understand what you mean. I don't know if I would "enjoy" constantly replaying levels, but I certainly enjoy getting past a point in a game that I lost on before but how it happens matters as well. If I had to find a new strategy to get past it and I figured it out after 3-10 tries, I get an elated feeling of accomplishment. However, if I simply get my ass kicked repeatedly twenty times and then by luck I get passed it, all I say is "Fucking finally!" and am much more annoyed by the experience.

As for the 3D camera thing, I have yet to play a game where the camera actually hampers experience. Yes, there are games like Skate and others where I would prefer a different/more dynamic/controllable camera, but as long as the game plays well, I'm okay with it. Most platformers where the camera has a chance to get stuck behind a wall usually have a controllable camera (if only a re-centering) that usually fixes any issues.

[NWR_insanolord]

Tobbebobbe, I suggest you play Super Meat Boy, if you haven't already. It seems right up your alley.

[Tobbebobbe]

I've never played Ghosts n Goblins, but I understand what you mean. I don't know if I would "enjoy" constantly replaying levels, but I certainly enjoy getting past a point in a game that I lost on before but how it happens matters as well. If I had to find a new strategy to get past it and I figured it out after 3-10 tries, I get an elated feeling of accomplishment. However, if I simply get my ass kicked repeatedly twenty times and then by luck I get passed it, all I say is "Fucking finally!" and am much more annoyed by the experience.

I understand exactly how you mean, and you bring a very good point to the table. There's a huge difference between repeating levels and increase your skill a little every time, and just throw a dice and hope that six dots will appear. However, it's often not as simple as that.


In Ghosts n Goblins, which is a very good example, you need to replay and replay the same level many times. In the process of doing that, you often figure out "tricks" for how to take care of certain enemies and how to pass certain segments. These tricks are often tiny gameplay details that are impossible to discover the first time you play through a game. In most modern games, the only reason people replay a level is to reach a certain goal, like unlocking achievements or new outfits or whatever. For example, you fight against the same monsters a lot in RPGs and you drive around the same course many times in racing games to get that trophy or that medal. While that result in the same - gradually getting better at a game, there's a distinct difference.


That difference is that in Ghosts n Goblins, you play because you think the challenge itself is fun, in the random racing game you play to reach a goal. Admit it, if you only got a sequence with the lovely and cute princess Prin-Prin after you raced the same course 50 times, you wouldn't do it. You just do it for that medal, to reach it. In Ghosts n Goblins, you replay the same level 50 times because it's actually fun, not because you want to see the lackluster five second ending with some Japanese names.


Of course, this why most of Nintendo's own games, especially the Mario games, have lackluster endings. Nintendo has since long realized that the real reward for the player isn't a medal and an half hour long cutscene for an ending, the real reward is the gameplay and sense of perfectly tuned challenge along the way.

[MaryJane]

Yes, I always like it better when a game has a strong ending, but I prefer that ending to be part of the game and not a TV show or short film like in Assasin's Creed: Brotherhood.

[Tobbebobbe]

Yes, I always like it better when a game has a strong ending, but I prefer that ending to be part of the game and not a TV show or short film like in Assasin's Creed: Brotherhood.

I see. What kind of accomplishment do you feel when you beat a game? The moment you beat the last boss, do you feel like a burden has been liften from your shoulders (almost a sense of freedom) or do you feel something else?

[MaryJane]

It depends on the game really.

In Zelda games beating the final boss makes me feel like I'm king of the world, and I just not only saved the world from darkness, but also retained my throne in the process. Lol, corny maybe, but true. Most other RPGs give me that same feeling usually, because of the deep stories.

For platformers, it's more a sense of completion, like I just figured out the Rubik's cube without looking it up online. (Disclaimer: I have never completed a Rubik's cube, and I would never look up how to do it online either)

In fighting games, strategy/tactical games, and simulation/sports games, I then more feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. Especially because I suck most at those games, and  beating them is like, "hmmm maybe I don't suck as much anymore".

[Guitar Smasher]

In retro games a common problem was that it seemed like the game designers were openly against the player.  You wanted the player to fail and the design came from quarter-sucking arcade machines.

I would agree but I think it's important to note that the challenge was of a rewarding nature, not a frustrating one.  This is what determines whether an arcade game will succeed or not.  These days a lot of games do seem to hold your hand too much.  And then when a dev wants to make a challenging game, they go about it in the wrong way.  Ultimately, a challenging game is only fun if the underlying gameplay is fun.  An example of a modern game that does this brilliantly is DKCR.

I'd also like to add, without going into too much detail, that design constraints were actually a good thing.  This can refer to anything from "poor" graphics forcing the player to use their imagination, to small cart sizes preventing devs from getting too ambitious.  In my opinion, the introduction of "realistic graphics" and "video cutscenes" has been to the detriment of modern gaming.  It seems that games of the past are more pure, in the sense that their focus was on rules and action.  Games today are entirely too focused on presentation.  For me it's like asking the question "would a hd graphics and a dramatic storyline make the board game of Monopoly any more fun?"

That's not to say that technical advancements haven't allowed for real improvements to some games; it's just that the problems I mentioned are still widespread.

[MaryJane]

Ummmm.... A dynamic storyline would make Monopoly better. Throw in a holographic board or virtual reality, and you've got yourself a billion-seller.

Not but seriously, graphics, ambitious and deep storylines, and huge overworlds do makes games better.

For me, the only time I want to use my imagination for a medium(as in the singular of media) is reading, and I do a lot of reading. There are some movies (like Havoc with Anne Hathaway, the short film Sleeping Dogs Lie, and the 1976 Moving Violation) where I do enjoy them leaving the ending open for personal imagination to fill in the blank, but 9.9 times out of 10, I want everything, especially the visuals, shoved down my throat.

I don't understand how anyone who plays videogames doesn't like a good story. Even fighting games have a story to them, even if it's simply a fighting tournament drawing together the world's best fighters, some of whom have a history with each other.

And big worlds usually mean more gameplay, so I don't see anything wrong with that.

I do understand that these elements are not what make a game good, but they do make a good (or even mediocre) game better. There were a lot of crappy and lazily made games on both the NES and SNES, so neither are these elements what break a game. The core elements, as you mentioned are the rules and action, like cake, and the story, graphics, and overworld, are the ice cream filling, with those little balls of chocolate, and the icing on the outside, respectively, that make the cake even better.

[Guitar Smasher]

Not but seriously, graphics, ambitious and deep storylines, and huge overworlds do makes games better.

And here's the problem: they can make some games better, but often they don't.  Still, most devs think it's necessary to strive towards these ideals, to ensure a good game.

For me, the only time I want to use my imagination for a medium(as in the singular of media) is reading, and I do a lot of reading. There are some movies (like Havoc with Anne Hathaway, the short film Sleeping Dogs Lie, and the 1976 Moving Violation) where I do enjoy them leaving the ending open for personal imagination to fill in the blank, but 9.9 times out of 10, I want everything, especially the visuals, shoved down my throat.

Then we differ in opinion.  Again for me, if you did a remake of say LttP or SMW with updated graphics, I don't understand how the games would be more fun.  The visuals were good enough that you didn't have to think about them; you were allowed to simply enjoy the game.

I don't understand how anyone who plays videogames doesn't like a good story. Even fighting games have a story to them, even if it's simply a fighting tournament drawing together the world's best fighters, some of whom have a history with each other.

I like good stories, I just don't find them in video games!  And what you described is what I'd consider a premise.  This I'm fine with, if it gives enough context for the game to make sense.  Anything extra usually just interrupts the actual gameplay.

And big worlds usually mean more gameplay, so I don't see anything wrong with that.

Big worlds usually mean a lot of empty space.  If you can give me a big world with lots of things for me to do, that's great.  But often devs get overly ambitious and we get a large, "thin" world.

I do understand that these elements are not what make a game good, but they do make a good (or even mediocre) game better. There were a lot of crappy and lazily made games on both the NES and SNES, so neither are these elements what break a game. The core elements, as you mentioned are the rules and action, like cake, and the story, graphics, and overworld, are the ice cream filling, with those little balls of chocolate, and the icing on the outside, respectively, that make the cake even better.

If the cake tastes good, then go ahead and decorate.  Just keep in mind that at some point I'll stop caring about what "technique" you used to apply the icing.

[broodwars]

Then we differ in opinion.  Again for me, if you did a remake of say LttP or SMW with updated graphics, I don't understand how the games would be more fun.  The visuals were good enough that you didn't have to think about them; you were allowed to simply enjoy the game.

Well, I would put forward Metroid Zero Mission as an example of how a remake with updated production values and modern design sensibilities can make all the difference.  The original Metroid is borderline unplayable IMO, with a host of problems that are well documented.  Zero Mission, however, is an excellent remake, fusing the original game's concept with the gameplay advancements made in Super Metroid and Metroid Fusion and a little of the backstory from Metroid Prime/the Metroid comics.  It is a definitely superior game to its predecessor.

[Ian Sane]

When I talk about bullshit difficulty, I don't mean the game is hard.  There is nothing wrong with a challenging game.  Ikaruga is a hard game.  I have never beaten it.  But I really enjoy it because it feels like legitimate challenge and I find when I play it I do better each time.

Metroid is bullshit difficulty.  I can only shoot in front of me or directly above me.  But they put in enemies that my shots fire over and ones that fly in a pattern that puts them between my sideways and upward shots.  Then when I die they give me a fraction of energy so I have to spend time building that back up.  And the whole game is based on discovering a big map but with no way in the game for me to keep track of where I have been already.  Bullshit.  They're basically jerking me around by giving me obstacles without the proper tools to overcome them.  Super Metroid has an auto-map and doesn't **** me on energy when I die and I can shoot in all directions so when an enemy kills me it is because I could not dodge correctly or I did the wrong thing.  It isn't because I have some huge blindspot the game intentionally shoves every enemy into.

I look at it like a car that lacks the ability to handle what the road throws at you.  Zelda had some bullshit difficulty back when your sword's range was like poking at someone with a stick.  I have to go right next to an enemy that hurts me just by touching me in order to kill it?  In A Link to the Past they add a sword swing where I can keep some distance and have some range to my attack.  I now have the tool to challenge the obstacles I face.  No more bullshit.

Though Ghouls 'n' Ghosts seems designed to offer bullshit difficulty on purpose for those that like it.  I'm fine with that since that's the purpose of the game.  But a lot of older games had that kind of difficulty just because of limitations, not out of a desire to make super-hardcore expert games.

[Louieturkey]

Try acing all the levels of Little Big Planet and not get frustrated by it.  That stuff can be really hard.  One level took me over 200 tries to ace and I have a few more still to finish. One level even tells you "Good luck" at the beginning just because of how hard it is (I have yet to ace this level).

I do thoroughly enjoy the game though.  There are still games today (including DKCR) that can frustrate.  I do love older games still though.

[Mop it up]

Not but seriously, graphics, ambitious and deep storylines, and huge overworlds do makes games better.

Definitely not true of many games. The perfect example is DooM 3, where the story and atmosphere compromise the gameplay. DooM was never about any of that, it's about one man vs. hordes of demons from Hell, beating the odds with nothing but the basic assortment of weapons. Anything else isn't DooM.

[Morari]

No. Doom 3 failed exactly because they got lazy and tried to design it to be more akin to the original games. Doom 3 was great at first, specifically because of the atmosphere. Once you get so far into the game however, that suspenseful atmosphere is replaced by demons randomly spawning into rooms, demons waiting behind doors to jump out at you, and demons coming out of seemingly non-existent closets. It's almost as if they tried to make it a throw back, but with slower weapons and far fewer enemies.

So in that sense, Doom 3's failure was one where outdated and/or lazy game design compromised what was otherwise a VERY good setting and atmosphere.

[Ian Sane]

I'd say that graphics, ambitious and deep storylines, and huge overworlds, if done well, make a good game even better.  The key is that it has to be done well.  But then that applies to everything, right?

There is an idea that graphics and gameplay are mutually exclusive (apparently DKC either sucks or looks terrible in the minds of these people) or that a game having any sort of story is a bad thing.  That's a very limited way of thinking.  The thing is if you neglect the gameplay for these things then the game ends up worse.  These things alone cannot make a bad game good.  And if you really **** these things up you can ruin a potentially good game.

[Mop it up]

DooM is not about setting and atmosphere. If they wanted that, they should have created a new IP instead of turning DooM into something it was never meant to be. Imagine if BioShock were actually DooM 4...

[Ian Sane]

Mop's Doom example bring up a good point.  One thing that can be frustrating about modern game design is when they introduce modern ideas into old game series and end up transforming them into something that lacks the whole appeal of the series in the first place.  At that point the series more or less just becomes a name with familiar characters but is has no real connection to a style of gameplay.  A good example is Mega Man who seemed pretty lost and irrelevant until Capcom went the retro route with Mega Man 9.  I'm not saying the retro route was completely necessary but the series had changes so much that "Mega Man" had just become a name.  It had no real connection to any sort of gameplay.  With Mega Man 9 they got back on track.

I'm not saying that sequels should be cookie cutter.  You can innovate and move a series forward while still maintaining the same basic core gameplay.  In fact if you really analyze a game there are usually only a few key components that makes the series what it is.  And there have been examples like Super Mario 64 or Resident Evil 4 where they went in a very different and modern direction but the results were fantastic.  Though I do like how Mario now co-exists in both 3D and 2D games.

Doom is about non-stop visceral first-person shooting action.  Keep the game true to that basic core definition and you'll make a good Doom sequel.

[Morari]

DooM is not about setting and atmosphere. If they wanted that, they should have created a new IP instead of turning DooM into something it was never meant to be. Imagine if BioShock were actually DooM 4...

I don't think you properly recall playing Doom back in 1993. It wasn't all just hordes of monsters being mowed down... in fact, that memory mostly comes from Doom II. The first game had plenty of moments that were pretty scary for the time period. It was a very natural and sensible choice to make Doom 3 a horror title. The problem was that they relied too much on the original games' mechanics, such as hiding monsters in purposeless closets and right behind doors for cheap scares.

It sounds like what you wanted was Serious Sam with imps and cyber-demons. You can't expect a game's sequel to be pitch perfect when there's a ten year gap between entries. Everyone else wanted Doom 3 to be what it was in the leaked alpha... a scary-as-**** FPS. I feel that the game only fell short of that goal due to lazy level design throughout later portions of the title. Had they stayed true to the atmosphere that they created during the initial parts of the game, it would have been one of the most memorable titles ever.

[Mop it up]

Eh, I think if it were meant to be a horror game, the stage design, graphics, and music would have all been a lot different. It'd have been more like Resident Evil in first-person. Just my belief, though.

[Pandareus]

As far as I'm concerned, good design is timeless. Mario and Mega Man games are still fun to play today because they were well-designed. Sure, they were difficult, but if you died, it was your own fault. You had all the tools needed at your disposal to finish the game.
 
I guess you could say they didn't contain "BS difficulty".
 
Compare that to Rayman on PSOne, which I recently tried to play for the first time. Beautiful, beautiful game, much better looking than either Mario or Mega Man. And yet, if you were to tell me it is one of your favorite games, I'd have to assume you're saying that because of nostalgia. The game doesn't have, and never had, good design.
 
It's just so difficult for all the wrong reasons. Like, they designed the levels just to frustrate you, or made sure Rayman's abilities would be nearly useless in them. He's really slow, they make the enemies fast. It's a pain to attack while jumping, they put flying enemies in there. Tiny platforms? Let's put enemies so small your attacks can't touch them on there. You can't spam your attack since you gotta wait for your fist to come back to you? Let's make sure we have enemies that take a dozen hits to kill in there.

I can go back to Mario and Mega Man, no problem. Rayman, which is more recent and more beautiful? Eff that game.
 
As for the topic; are retro games as fun as modern games? If they were well designed? Absolutely. Sure, today's games are better-looking and everything, but there are a tons of games out there that I find badly designed, and no matter how beautiful they are, or how vast their worlds are, I think the classics compare favorably to them and are more worth sinking time into.
 
And this is not me putting Mario up against shovelware, either, but against well-regarded games such as Assassin's Creed 2 and Kingdom Hearts, though I don't know if I want to get into that.
 
If you want to, you can probably look for my Kingdom Hearts rant here on this forum.

[NWR_insanolord]

As far as I'm concerned, good design is timeless.

This right here is the truth. There are great games in every era, and talented developers are able to get fantastic results no matter what technology they're working with.