Games were definitely buggy and I honestly think people forget how much better the quality is nowadays.

I also think there is something to it just being the 90s or so and not having much choice. If you only have one game to play then of course you’re going to replay it to death. If I have a steam library of 1000 games then I’m much less likely to.

A lot of this is just nostalgia for the past and the environment as opposed to games being any better.

I mean technical wise, games are better now and could easily be patched, but I think that’s why games had better gameplay in the past to make up for the lack of gamer accessibility to patching.

You’re saying that because games couldn’t be patched, they had better gameplay? That makes no sense at all.

Lots of games had crap gameplay. There are more junk vintage games than good ones. The gameplay was simple because it had to be. The consoles didn’t have the power to do more. Chips were expensive. So they had to invent simple gameplay that could fit in 4k of ROM. If dirt simple gameplay is your thing, great. Thr Atari joystick had one stinking button for crying out loud.

You think Space Invaders has better gameplay than Sky Force Reloaded? Or Strider has better gameplay than Hollow Knight? You’re insane.

E.T. for the 2600 had gameplay so bad it crashed the entire video game industry.

Double Dragon on NES had a jump that was impossible to make forcing the company to make a new cart and give refunds.

Double Dragon on NES had a jump that was impossible to make forcing the company to make a new cart and give refunds.

I didn’t know this. This is obviously why I never finished that game and certainly not because I suck at it.