I don't have such games in mind. I never changed my mind about games if I considered them bad or good at some point. But I like to reapproach some games I considered bad, however I never managed to change my opinion on them.

I think it has something to do with how the game is played/presented. People love chess, checkers and backgammon. How many sets are sold per year and how many are sold online? How many people pay to customize their familiar games?

I played Monopoly as a child, today, you can buy a Monopoly set where you swipe an electronic card. I actually think it takes away from the original feeling of the game (i.e. long, drawn out, boring, anger at the person on boardwalk, etc), but would hopefully make things faster.

I still like the game, I just don't like to play it. :)

Hardest game ever: Ghosts 'n Goblins

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard

Megaman? I think it is Megaman 3 where there are lots of instant death due to platforming......

As a kid, I find it is cool to have a big chargeable gun, then find I can play a gun and sword wielding robot better, then dying to spikes countless times due to hard to jump places kill the fun.

Oh yeah... and you had to choose the bosses in just the right order to gain their special actions in order to make it through other levels.

That was pretty cerebral.

That games wasn't hard.

That game was IMPOSSIBLE!

It was a great tech demo though... and I was much more impressed (and played completely through) Half Life, but of course, we may never see that game here.

What was it, 1998? Yeah, for '98 it was mind blowing. 2015 has a different opinion. Shows what merits tech based games have though when compared on a time scale. Games definitely benefit more from story telling and characterization than glitz and sparkle.

Game publisher like ubisoft, square, blizzard etc disagree with a number of remastered games......

"How's I am going to get more money if the game still stay good after X years?"

I've been saying the same thing for years. Not many people seem to agree. Most people want the latest and greatest graphics it seems, story be damned. That is, if they have enough time after watching Ow! My Balls!.

Brawndo's got what plants crave, it's got electrolytes.

I would have to beg to differ with that assessment, as some people like James Cameron waited to film movies like "Avatar" when the technology was 'right' to do so.

Now, movies these days certainly get a lot of attention from the "glitz and sparkle" that you mention; however, does the story telling change?

You have two camps: those who reminisce the old and want to see it in a new light; and those who see things in a new light who have never seen the 'old'.

I agree with your statement that games benefit from the story telling and characterization; however, did that change between the two or three versions of famous movies that employed all of Hollywood's glitz and glamour?

I actually like to see things before my time, it gives me some odd sense of peace.

Interesting topic, really (+1).

If you were fairly young when Spore came out... well I could be your father 0_o....

But TBH I can't really offer anything. Sure, the games I played when I was young were a lot more primitive. And I probably wouldn't play them nowadays. But I don't feel they were overestimated at their time (like Spore IMO was).

*goes play SimEarth*

Fallout 3, certainly. I was so psyched I was deluded by it and enjoyed seeing all the "throwbacks" and the bobbleheads and, BLAHHHH! In reflection, it's way blasphemous and lame and weak compared to Fallout 1+2.

Oh yeah, also SimCity2000, Theme Hospital, hmmm, maybe will add others as I think of them.

That's the best thing I've read on here today. I completely agree.