It sure is.;)

I don't know about that, but You can do it on the PC. That one is surely playable today. ;)

There are plenty of literary "classics" that appeal to no few except those who consider themself "literary enthusiasts". Same thing with any medium. Many of the Bronte sisters' writings, etc etc. (from many opinions) are just to be appreciated from a historical perspective.

How do you know that... ... if the following statement is true? Not to be nitpicky, but your statement doesn't make sense. :p

--------------------

I am currently playing Zelda: Ocarina of Time for the very first time. (I am playing it on the 3DS, so I am playing with brushed-up graphics, but I wouldn't mind playing it on a Nintendo 64 if I owned one and could find an affordable copy of the game.) I think the game is fantastic.

Other than that I played Deus Ex for the first time in 2010, and I found the game to be awesome. I also love games like the Monkey Island series, Full Throttle, Beneath A Steel Sky, Day of the Tentacle, Flight of the Amazon Queen, The Indiana Jones games, etc, all of which I played years after they were released.

The only games I really can't bear to play are games whose newer releases are deeper. By this I mean that I could never go back to Civ II after playing Civ IV, as I would miss the Great Persons and the religion and all the other strategic layers IV has that II doesn't.

You're right. It's not completely accurate for me to say that every piece of art that's remembered today also holds up today. And I'm willing to admit that there are games out there that are far more historically significant than they are fun to play. But from my own experiences, I've never come across a classic game that couldn't be enjoyed if you got into the right mindset. Even old Zork titles from the 80s. And I think that a lot of the time people are too quick to label "different than it is now" as "outdated." Things like the style of gameplay or approach to overall design. Now things like an unintuitive UI or poor visuals... well, I suppose that's fair to call those things outdated.

Some of this also has to do with the fact that I seem to be worlds more patient with games than most other gamers. Because I also find that I can enjoy a lot of newer titles that others can't stand (Far Cry 2, Doom 3, Timeshift, Red Steel 1, etc).

Actually, I think the old isometric rendered games scale heaps better than modern games built completely in 3D.

I mean, have any of you guys played Baldur's Gate II (or 1 in Tutu) with the widescreen patch? The patch doesn't change anything about the graphics, it only expands and scales the map to 1920x1080 resolution. It looks absolutely amazing, beautiful, isometric games built in 2D in full 1080p look like works of art. Modern 3D games all look the same, they look cheap, and what's more they only look "good" in screenshots, once you actually get them running and scale them to your monitor, they look not even half as good as you're led to believe. They also age badly, what looks "good" will be outdone in under a year by something else, it's a race to see who can produce the sharpest textures, but in the end who cares, they have forgotten about what games are about, it ain't picture books.

I am primarily a CRPGer and turn-based strategy fan so that is the perspective I am coming from here.

I have never care much about graphics. I can play Quake(the first one) and get more out of it than I can Quake III or some such. Most of the games I play(as in I play right now) are 2D, top-down RPGs with static 32x32 pixel icons that blink from grid square to grid square across the map and it has zero to do with nostalgia.

But there are limits to this. I remember playing Ultima 1-3 on my friend's Apple ][ e back in the 1980s and loving them. But if I try to play Ultima 4 or 5(which I own through GOG) I can't make it 10 minutes without quitting. This is partly due to game design issues I don't agree with and partly because the nostalgia factor cannot carry me. Same goes for Ultima Underworld 1 & 2. I can play Might and Magic 7 to no end and be fully engrossed in every minute of it(a game that is typically lambasted for it's 2.5D graphics that look like Build engine leftovers) but the same does not hold for Might and Magic 8. This tells me that gameplay is the most important factor for me and if a game is lacking in it's gameplay then I do not care what graphics it uses or how old it is.

Nostalgia. First you play one game because of it, then a second one and at some point you realise that they are better in a lot of ways than a majority of modern games. You start to appreciate their complexity, feeling, graphics, music, sound effects, small details here and there, etc. Suddenly you start to look for other old games, you discover "new" forgotten genres (turn based strategy games, real flight simulators, interactive movies, etc) and suddenly nostalgia changes from "a yearning for the past" (source: Wikipedia) to a state of mind, a way of life.

I play retro games because of reasons I wrote above. I play modern games as well but most of my collection are old games. I have no problem with playing "Wolfenstein 3D" or "Electro Body" - "Electro Man" after playing "MASS EFFECT 2" or "CRYSIS 2" and Vice Versa, I enjoy them all the same.

It all depends on how well things age. For example, Super Mario Brothers 3's graphics (All-Stars version) is superior to Star Fox's, in part because they have aesthetic appeal and wasn't superseded by new technology. Be it the control, graphics, or gameplay, I always find ways that many new games are superior - and then find something that an old game did a lot better.

This is a great comfort to me, since it means that as I get older, the games I play will get better over time - and I will have good memories of those that came before. It is all good. :)

I drown myself in nostalgia.

I like it.

I usually play all my games only 5-10 (or more) years after their actual release date (even if I bought them pretty close to release date), so I presume they are not mostly about nostalgia. It may be thought about the fact that I don't play that many brand-new games currently, so I may not have full view what things in these older games have been done better later. E.g., if I had played Mass Effect 3, I would consider all older PC RPGs quite boring?

At the moment I am enjoying Heavy Gear (the first one) quite a bit, even more than I thought I would. I was pretty sure its early "3D accelerated" graphics would probably hurt my eyes, but not really. It is not a beautiful game by today's standards (I'm not sure if it ever was), still with most locales I get the feeling of "being there". But maybe there is also a bit of nostalgia because the game resembles quite much Mechwarrior games, which I used to love a long time ago.

Another game I used to love, and still loved now when I replayed them, Magic Carpet 1-2. It would have been interesting to know whether I had really enjoyed them as much if I didn't have the nostalgia in it. One of their main selling points back then were the spectacular 3D graphics, which are not spectacular anymore, but usable. But I still think their gameplay is diamond, even today.

As for your experience with Thief, maybe later games have just done the same "sneaking game" genre better? Back when Thief came out, apart from Metal Gear Solid on Playstation, it was still quite a novel idea in an action game, apart maybe for a few older games from Commodore 64 etc. But after Thief and MGS, I think many contemporary action games included sneaking as part of their gameplay, No One Lives Forever etc.

One reason to like certain types of old games is because nowadays there might be less such games around. For me mech games is such (or then I am just unaware of modern "mech simulations", I have limited experience with the "Armored Core" series on consoles), and I am unsure if CRPGs with tactical turn-based combat are that common anymore either. Most RPGs released today seem to be action-RPGs, with either FPS shooting or slash'em-ups.

Usually games which were applauded for their graphics, or games/genres where the user interface has vastly improved over years, endure the test of time the worst. Early RTS games had awful controls by today's standards, I'm not fully sure if I wanted to learn the complicated and awkwards controls of System Shock (or Ultima Underworld 1-2) today either, if it was a completely unknown game to me. I keep hearing there's some user mod with mouselook for SS, I don't know how that works.

A very few games, I play for nostalgia (mostly Origin titles though I must say that the later Ultima titles and Crusader are still quite good if you're not obsessed about cutting-edge graphics and can forgive horrible handling for Crusader), but I'm realistic about it.

Some games are timeless like MOO2 or MOM. Until those games are bested by future game in enough meaningful ways, they will remain highly desirable.

Other games have just been surpassed by more recent titles.

For exemple, someone who never played a space sim might enjoy Wing Commander III, but anyone who played Freespace will cringe when playing Wing Commander III.

I'm playing Wing Commander III currently and hanging on more for the story than the gameplay at this point (I didn't finish the game when I initially played it... the second or third CD was bad so my experience ended when I was asked to insert that CD during gameplay :P).

Once I'm done with it, I will no come back to that game (as great as it was at the time), but I'll come back to Freespace or Freespace II every once in a while.

For the most part, if I really liked a game some 10+ years ago or so I can easily enjoy it today. As a general rule the game needs to be fun. Graphics/sound are definitely on the lower order. The actual gameplay is what makes or breaks a game for me.

Something like Magic Carpet may not look like anything special today, but there's never been a game like it before or after - hoping for the eventual part 2 on GOG. On the other hand, I just recently completed Another World, a game I've never touched before, and while I think the atmosphere is ace I found the game unfun. The tediousness of repeated dying through trial and error was quite off-putting. I simply forced myself to the finish line. Good thing then that it is a very short game.

I recently gave up on MDK because the controls were just bothering me. They're not horrible by any means, but they didn't quite click with me. Also, while I may have said graphics may not bother me that much this is one exception... I know everything looks a bit drab for a reason, but yuck! It ain't a pretty game by a long shot. Not sure what went wrong as I remember loving the demo a long time ago, but it just doesn't appeal to me anymore. Yup, this time the memories got the better of me.

I would've enjoyed Fallout 2 more if it hadn't be for the exhausting NPC partner equipment juggle through tedious dialog/screen-swapping (visiting the NCR is always a pain). Fallout 1 was great for soloing, but since I was more or less forced to team up in 2 - you won't live long without additional help - the game became a bit of a chore. Not to mention, not being able to survive the boss fight since I wasn't aware that certain skills were needed for that one event only... Talk about a bummer. Played through both games in succession for the first time just last month. 2 might be bigger, but 1 was definitely more fun.

I also recently beat Unreal again. It has been some twelve odd years or so since the last time. Antiquated graphics certainly didn't kill the fun. In some respects it still is a quite decent-looking game. Yup, the level design was at times very good... as long as you stayed indoors. The open areas just feel a bit drab and empty in comparison.

Almost every game I've bought here I didn't play when it was originally released. Most I like, some I don't.

Sorry about that, buy I still enjoy old games and I find them to be as funny and entertaining as ever....