For me, the early 90s are at the tail end of how far *forward* I usually look when it comes to gaming, with a few exceptions, and with the major exception of games that are in the style of older games. (Note that the exception is quite broad, and includes games like the Nintendo DS Castlevanias and Etrian Odyssey; also, Final Fantasy Tactics is enough of an exception that I consider Fell Seal: Arbiter's Mark to be reasonable. On the other hand, Baldur's Gate is pretty much a non-exception, and the RPGs I like from that era and onward tend to be either those that are more classic/retro in style or SaGa-style RPGs.)

Also, you don't consider the early Mario games to be worth playing?

My limit is that I tend not to play Atari games or other console games from that era; on the other hand, computer games, specifically RPGs, tend to work, though in some cases (Wizardry 1-3 and 5) I may use save states to get around what I see as misfeatures in the game.

Super Mario Land for Gameboy might be the precise cut off point for me and possibly the earliest game I remember playing. But it's a good example of why I usually won't go back that far. It gets us to a gaming area where I would consider saying, everything improved since, most notable right after with the SNES. When I look at the NESmini for example, I do agree with the title selection and I would even say, many titles they got there can still be enjoyed today (Castlevania, Megaman, Super Mario, etc.), but their successors were simply better, ranging from Super Mario World to PSX-era Castlevania. So, sure, if you want to experience the beginning or so, go back, but why would you ever pick Castlevania 1 if you have not played Symphony of the Night yet?

I think, the big point for me is that it feels like, there are historical phases where gaming at large just got better. The SNES improved on the NES in just about every aspect. But then, in the early 90s we started to have some games which have been nearly unmatched since in some aspects, like the stealth gameplay of Thief, the atmosphere of Diablo, the gamplay of Star Craft etc.

I'm not saying, people can't enjoy 80s games, but while I would still understand how someone could call Grand Turismo 1 his favorite racing game of all time, I would have a hard time believing someone claims racing games declined from the 80s to the 90s.

They're not the same type of game.

Castlevania 1 is a classic-style Castlevania. The game is linear, there's a specific set of stages that you play in order, you have limited lives and instant death pits, and the game focuses entirely on action (and platforming). Also, the game's design makes it feasible for it to be completed in a single session (though I never got past the 5th block (out of 6)).

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is a Metroidvania. The game is not strictly linear, you can backtrack and explore, falling into a pit won't kill you (instead, you go to the next room), and there's mechanics borrowed from the RPG genre like experience-based leveling and an inventory of items to use. The game is not meant to be beaten in one session, as can be seen by all the save points found throughout the game.

So, one reason to pick Castlevania 1 over Symphony of the Night is because you're in the mood for a more arcade-y experience rather than a longer, more complex, adventure.

Personally, I prefer Super Mario Bros. (1) to that, as the gameplay feels better in that game, plus you actually have color, so the game looks better. Also, SMB1 has warp zones, so you can skip straight to later stages; Super Mario Land doesn't have that, and there isn't even a way to continue if you die (and, I note, no save feature; even the original Japanese release of Castlevania had one).

Oh, that's another game I could have listed. Curiously enough, I would have said quite the opposite and considered it overrated from today's perspective. I still think it's somewhat stylish and original with the setting, but to me the gameplay turned out to be even worse than I remembered it. It's all just trial and error, memorizing what to do and what to avoid and then execute it perfectly without any margin for errors. After I gave up on it, I watched the rest of the game on YouTube, and the second half also seemed very bland and unimaginative compared to the promising beginning, lots of long empty corridors or tunnels to crawl through, very few exciting alien landscapes and creatures.

I fully agree with your view on LucasArts adventures though (with the exception of from Escape from Monkey Island, but that wasn't very good back then either).

Games that hold up today are

1. Fantasy General 1996
graphics, system, challenge, all can be considered more then enough to compete against any modern game with a similar offer

2. Submarine Titans 2000
a nice alternative rts with gorgeous environments, different takes and a good campaign

3. Age of Wonders 1999
even with better contenders such as Heroes of Might and Magic or Warlords .. Disciples, around i have to say that this version sold on GoG really does shine and works tremendously on modern day machines

My primary concerns with deciding which games to pick are threefold, namely graphics, mechanics and story. So yea i truly do feel these three games can be perfectly enjoyed by almost anyone in 2020

Games that don't hold up ( but do deserve their name )

1. Baldurs Gate
It needed a remaster right

2. Populous the Beginning
the game just feels wrong

3. The elder scrolls
unplayable piece of software that might had some nice idea's if the regular crowd would have consisted out of pyramid heads ( since then i would not be gaming )

The Monkey Island series is certainly one of my favorite adventure series, a lot of humor and fun puzzles, though I did get stuck a few times looking for clues to those puzzles lol. Enjoyed the art style also, since I liked animated shows and movies a lot at the time. These days I'm more into japanese animes. Go go Crunchyroll and FUNimation!
.

No, we'd get good at it. Now I can't possibly think of doing it again, but as clunky as it was I invested time in it and could control lara properly. Little Big Adventure was a control mess I had to give up to. I wish we could try the modernized controls like in the Steam version but the dev doesn't care.

I just recently played a Super Mario World hack (Super Bepis world, but I recently played Super Nantucket World as well), and the controls felt really slippery.

(Note: For those who want to check these out, note that these are troll hacks, and the latter, in particular, has content that some may find inappropriate (swear word on the title screen, for example), and some players encountered a game freeze in the final (real) level.)

Interesting. Though I love all 3 (all of the 1st 5 really), civ 3 is my favorite of the 1st 3 games. Except sadly when it comes to the city and castle views. Civilization did it first, and as it turns out, the best.

Btw, you're really missing out if you haven't played Civ 4 yet. Rectify immediately :)

I would say the original Tomb Raider holds up pretty well since it's mainly focused on exploration and platforming. Last time I played Tomb Raider 2, though, I found myself annoyed that the game was pushing gunfighting and action harder because combat isn't something the engine is very good at and it's not what makes the concept appealing to me.

Yes, I understand how it can be frustrating since it's not an easy game. The trial and error part, however, is a common element of the subgenre of cinematic platform games, like the original Prince of Persia and more recent games like Limbo and Inside. Prince of Persia was even more frustrating, since you had a limited amount of time to complete it.

Also I wouldn't call the second half of the game unimaginative, it may seem somewhat bland compared to more modern games, but it was actually really creative for its time, things like swimming, getting into the tank/machine at the arena and being wounded and crawling at the end made for some game mechanics variety that wasn't common in those days. Also the many ways in which you kill some of the enemies was very creative. As for the narrative, I think it was really cool how the friendly alien story keeps progressing in the background until the ending and how the whole story is told without words (except for some bits on the intro).

I completely agree about Escape from Monkey Island, haha, it was such a disappointing game! :)

The problem with Civ 3 is that I didn't play it back in the day, I played it for the first time in recent years, after joining GOG, so I didn't get to play it as much as the others and there was no nostalgia attached to it. I still liked it, though.

Civ 4 has been on my wishlist for a long time, I look forward to try it eventually, it's just that there are other games I would like to play before that, so it will take a while to get there, but I certainly want to play it. :)

I think this applies to Bullfrog titles in general.

The gameplay loop is good, but can definitely get a bit exhausting and at times requires cheap tricks to get past.

I remember playing Tomb Raider 2 and then MDK soon after and the controls were so much better in the latter. But in general I saw the passage to first person with great controls and fast movements and beautiful sprites like Doom and Heretic, to a horde of look at my ass while I run ugly 3D with slow and clunky characters that kept running against walls. I don't think TR holds well at all and when I tried to replay the first trilogy I couln't put up again with those controls and gameplay. Also the enemies looked like they didn't care or were helpless and unconvincing. Also I remember thinking some isometric games had bad controls, I'm looking at you Ultima VIII: Pagan, Little Big Adventure and Crusader: No Remorse. The difference with the 90s and now is that in the 90s I owned few games, I had paid for them and had to bite the bullet, and I would blame myself for not being good at it and not blame bad, clunky, counter-intuitive design. Now I would blame the game for being bad and I think as gamers we have more expectations, it's not just about having better machines but about game design.

I would suggest that a game that didn't age badly is Lands of Lore. I had the demo but I finally played it on GOG for the first time as a whole game and I think it's a classic gameplay that has aged well. Maybe some sections are a bit repetitive and not pleasing to the eye, but nothing that made me want to quit.
Magic Carpet is still great, expecially when you remap arrow keys to WASD. And still there's no real successor.
King of Dragon Pass holds well. It might be that's heavily text based and the art is handpainted. It feels a bit timeless.

That's true, I was never a great fan of PoP's gameplay either, but disregarding the time limit, from what I recall PoP still had a little more flexibility and leniency, like allowing a few injuries and the possibility to regain health, not everything was one hit and it's over (although it had that, too). And the newer titles like Limbo and Inside aren't as frustrating, they have evolved from this hardcore approach. And they aren't as slow.

Isn't that what we're talking about here though, whether games that seemed exciting back then, still hold up today? ;) Anyway, I was actually more comparing it to the first half than to modern games, but maybe that's a bit unfair because I didn't play it myself and just watched it instead, thinking "thankfully I didn't have to play through these tedious sections myself" ... But you make some fair points. Maybe it's just not my cup of tea.