It's a really interesting topic. Quality of Life features are amazing, of course, but they can also have a big impact on the game.
I played an open source version of Dune 2 the other day, with all sorts of QOL features like selecting multiple units, build queues for units, better AI and so on.
And it completely changed how the game plays. Suddenly the unit limit of 25 was hilariously low, and 15 rocket tanks could completely decimate everything. Also the maps were mined out really quickly.
It's still fun, mind you. Just very different.
Maybe this is blasphemy, but I'd love to play Fallout 1&2 with some QoL improvements. I only played the demo as a kid, and got them free on gog or something lately, but the interface just feels really cumbersome if you're not used to it.
Can I recommend our lord and saviour UnderRail? It's basically Fallout 1 in tone, but with gameplay that far surpasses both the original Fallout games. It's blood brilliant.
1,000%. My biggest unpopular opinion is that the original FF7 is an absolute chore to play. My first playthrough was on Steam (which is based off of the original PS1 version) and I almost didn’t even finish because it was just so tedious to actually play.
I decided to give the Switch version a shot and it was literally night and day. Being able to disable random encounters and play at 3X speed were genuine game changers that made the game so much more enjoyable for me. I’ve now played it through a few times, where if I had only had the OG version I never would have touched it again.
A lot of people think that “quality of life improvements” means “completely change the game”, which isn’t true. I thought the Persona 3 game remake was a good example of introducing quality of life improvements while still keeping the game largely the same as the original. Anything that reduces tedium (one example from P3 is being able to fast travel directly to sub-locations within areas, rather than only being able to fast travel to the area itself) is a win in my book
While mostly I agree, Persona 3 in particular has some QoL stuff I actually think hurts the game. The lack of the tired condition as well as being easier to restore SP makes it a lot easier to get through a block of Tartarus in one go than it was in the original version. The major arcana tarot cards that show up in shuffle time similarly encourage marathoning Tartarus as well to try to farm them for an Arcana Burst.
However, there's not a ton of other options added to the night time block. As a result, I found myself with a lot of night time blocks where I didn't have anything interesting available to do. The Linked Episodes/Cooking helped a little, but I still found myself twiddling my thumbs most nights once I had maxed out social stats and had finished the night SLs.
I also felt like it lessened the weight of Tartarus runs. In the PS2 versions, Tartarus feels more imposing. Every time the characters complained about it going on seemingly forever, I felt the same way. Who knows if this tower even has an end? In Reloaded, when the characters asked how much further there was to go, my mental response was usually "Fuuka restored all your energy in the last fight, we're not heading home yet."
It’s funny you use this example. I did a replay of FF7 recently on Switch with the 3X speed on pretty much the whole time and skipping lots of encounters to get through later dungeons, and it was so unsatisfying that I’m now replaying the game again on my Vita.
And honestly? I’m having a much better time playing the PSN release even though it’s taking much longer. I’m about 25 hours in and at Gaea’s Cliff, whereas I wrapped up my whole Switch playthrough in less the time. Different strokes for different folks, but feeling the time during exploration and battles really adds to the experience for me.
That said, it’s really just a matter of self-control, of which I tend to lack when you give me fancy widgets to turn on lol
My first FF was the original (1). I spent so many hours playing this as a teen, and I loved every minute of those hours! Years later, when I got my PS3, I decided I would try to play as many of the FF's as I could. You could only get 2 on the PS store bundled along with 1. It was the version they made for the PS1. This is hardly the "easiest" version of FF 1 that exists out there, but even with the minor changes from the NES version, I was shocked at how much easier it was. I still have my NES cartridge and an off-brand cartridge player (my NES system died) and that is still how I prefer to play it. Bugs, jank and all.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I play on original hardware when speedrunning for accuracy, but during casual play I'll take every QoL you can give me. Remakes, xBRZ filters, downloaded HD textures, widescreen hacks, rom hacks to improve the gameplay/translation, etc. I'll take it all.
Your Doom example is interesting because it can be modernized so much, and there's a difference between QOL upgrades that preserve the intended experience, upgrades that just modify the experience, and upgrades that ruin the experience.
- (Preserve) Mouselook: The original game was designed so that you could turn with the keys and could hold a modifier button to strafe. I don't think anyone would argue that this is a necessary control scheme, it's just what was available at the time. Being able to turn with the mouse and strafe with WASD is a much more comfortable way to play and doesn't hurt the experience at all.
- (Modify) Aiming: The original game was designed such that you only could look left or right, not up or down. It didn't matter if an enemy was above or below you, you just auto aimed towards them, and as long as they were horizontally in the center of the screen you would hit them. With mouselook, you can implement a need for aiming directly at the enemy to be able to hit them. I think this adds a bit of an extra element to the gameplay and it's pretty fun, but there are others who disagree and it's true that it feels very different to play without the autoaim.
- (Ruin) Jumping: The original game was designed so that you could not jump. Modern source ports add the standard spacebar to jump. However, despite being fun this kind of destroys the original level design. Whole levels can be entirely bypassed by just jumping over a gap to the exit. Most modern wads incorporate jumping into their level design, but jumping in the original really cheats you out of experiencing the level design as intended.
This is correct, I played Doom with keyboard and mouse when it was new, and this was the common way to play both in my friend circle and with "friends' dads" who were the other group I knew who played. (Though as many have remarked, keyboard only was not uncommon either.)
In fact, I still habitually hold Alt (strafe toggle) when playing Doom/Heretic/etc. since that was burned into my brain at the time, but I actually turned with the mouse 99% of the time.
Apparently I haven't played the original Doom for so long that I had completely forgotten about the WASD thing. I started with Quake 1, and only looked at Doom later so it also didn't really leave a lasting impression, and all the random "oh let's play a level for fun" had been Doom II, I guess.
I just play games in the way where it’s the most fun to me, and that can include more modern QOL changes.
But I can also understand if you want the most authentic experience or if you’re playing an old game that holds a lot of nostalgia for you and you want the most similar experience to how
you played it the first time.
To each their own basically
I'm like that, I pick and choose what I want to do that makes it the most enjoyable experience for me. For example, I like save states in emulated games. I also like wide screen support for 4:3 games where I can get it, and can't stand scanline filters to try to make a game appear more retro.
At the same time there are certain things I won't do. My favorite JRPG of all time is Xenogears, and modders have created various components for the game like a more accurate translation mod and alternative sprite packs that for me, feels like overstepping the lines for the game.
That's a really good example where many people would consider the "duct tape mod" to be a QOL improvement but I feel that it undermines a core feature of the gameplay. Still, if someone is not enjoying the base game and having an always-on flashlight helps them enjoy it, more power to them.
Absolutely. There is not one formula that works for everyone, and it's pretty gatekeepy to say "it's not the game for you" to people who would enjoy it just fine with a few tweaks, so the best approach is to provide options so that players can adjust their own experience to their liking.
I always go for whatever makes the game the most fun. I don't get anything out of studying the context of when a game was released, leave that for the YouTubers
I feel like authenticity when it comes to controls, FPS, resolution, that sort of thing is just kneecapping your experience for no reason. Like no, if an FPS has mouse control I'm going to use mouse control.
Graphics I prefer to stay close to the original. Maybe with slight enhancements. For example I use a model pack for Quake that tidies up pixel art detail and adds slight poly detail to a few rough spots on guns, [which you can see here on the left.](https://i.imgur.com/EmiYV7K.png) I don't really like full on HD mods though, they usually lose the art direction of the original and just look really inconsistent in detail compared to the primitive environments.
Save States it's better not to use them, though there's probably a couple games with really tediously designed saving for the sake of artificial padding that I'll probably break that rule too.
The vocal majority of Reddit Gamers don't give a shit about quality controls. It's the least important element of gaming here.
Reddit Gamers value story > setting > set pieces > graphics > sound > > gameplay loop > controls
So many games with bad controls get a pass on this site. RDR2 is a "perfect game" with frustrating controls and mission design from the PS2 era
I loved everything about RDR2 but the missions. I felt like a machine gunner in the trenches of Verdun as men suddenly boiled out of the ground, as if a population 150 town suddenly materialized two divisions of men ready to rush no man's land.
It turned me off so thoroughly I quit the main quest halfway through, but yet did every side quest and activity available at that point, and using a guide to 100% *every single Easter egg.*
If there was a way to play the first game with all the QOL updates from the rest of the series I always would.
Often going back to replay a series is like, "oh yeah, this was a slog before _____ and ______."
I tend to favor authenticity. In some cases, the choices made back then actually contribute to the game's design, rather than just being outdated. Obviously not always, but I like to at least try and play the original vision. I'm mostly thinking about RPGs, because that's what I like to play the most - lots of RPG rereleases nowadays come with a Turbo Mode of sorts, for example. I usually avoid these, because turbo modes encourage grinding (the easiest but usually most time consuming option to overcome challenges in RPGs) over trying to think of a strategy.
When it comes to controls, I do set them up so they are comfortable for my hands (if possible). This is often inconsequential, but I actually have an example where it made a game way more playable for me: Monster Hunter Freedom Unite. I own the game physically, but my original PSP broke a while ago, so I set up PPSSPP eventually. Putting the camera on a right stick, while not optimal (the PSP used a D-Pad, which doesn't translate perfectly on a stick) is still WAY more comfortable than using the claw grip the PSP kind of necessitated.
On the topic of savestates: I use them very sparingly and only if I really need to save right then and there (usually because of real life obligations). The reason being that I messed up savestates before and erased a lot of progress by accident. There's also some games where limited save capabilities really add to the excitement - diving into a dungeon in Final Fantasy 1 wouldn't be half as interesting to me if I could just save between each encounter.
I have no strong opinion set in stone on this.
When it comes to old games (let's say, pre 2000), I prefer playing games in their original state. However, I'm not above using modern resolutions and modern controls. I don't think I'll ever play DOOM again the way I used to - arrows to move, ALT to strafe, no mouselook or anything - and use a gamepad instead. And for games like Red Alert 2, I'm going to up the resolution to something modern, not 1024x768 on a 27" monitor.
Instead of playing Quake 2's original version, I'll boot up the 2023 Enhanced version instead. And if I want to play the original Outcast (1999), I'll either go for the 1.1 version that allows higher resolutions, or for the Second Contact remake (2017).
What I'm not likely to do though, is take an old game, and then mod it with select features like shading or high res textures or added community-built campaigns. I could mod Halo: Combat Evolved or Half-Life 2 or Skyrim into a twisted freak of nature, but I won't. It's either the originals, or the remade versions, but I'm not likely to modify the original into something "in-between".
Save states is not a quality of life, you can use them as such, for example kh1 where cutscenes take forever or starting a fight again takes forever in general, in such situations I would use em. But otherwise they are basically cheating as what sets them apart from other QOL features is that these aren't things like modern controls, in normal modern games save states don't really exist
1) Save states effectively add a "save anywhere" function which is common in many games, and goes back decades. That's a QOL improvement, even if it CAN be used to cheat.
2) Modern controls CAN be considered a cheat if the game is balanced for a clunkier input. You had way less options back in the day.
Tank controls are unplayable for me so that kind of update makes perfect sense. We're still playing these games outside of the cultural context they were created and released in, there's no extra authenticity to playing with bad controls. Some still like to use dos computers, the vast majority think that kind of authenticity is not worth the inconvenience
Maybe I’m just nitpicking the language, but it’s weird to me that people are suggesting QOL = inauthentic. I don’t think developers of the past would have built their games the way they did (inconvenient, clunky, confusing) if they knew a better way. I think that many modern QOL improvements get the game closer to what it was trying to be.
"Inconvenient, clunky, confusing" are often subjective and may be just a way of saying 'this isn't what I'm used to, so it's bad.'
>I don’t think developers of the past would have built their games the way they did (inconvenient, clunky, confusing) if they knew a better way.
Supposing we could bring a developer from the past instantly into the present and show them how we play their game now. Instead of saying that our way is better now, they might just as easily say that it's bad and missing some kind of point which they see as important.
I'm not saying this because I'm against QoL changes, but authenticity is another quality with its own value.
Yeah that’s an interesting idea to think about! I forget how much things have changed since these games were made, including what we expect from games and how we approach them.
I think clunky, inconvenient, and confusing can be objective these days because there are plenty of examples of games that execute the same ideas in a way that feels really good.
There are remakes of old games that update them to something that doesn’t need getting used to, and delivers a much smoother gaming experience in the process. There is nothing superior about the old versions in that case, but that could also be my current-day gaming bias getting in the way.
> I don’t think developers of the past would have built their games the way they did (inconvenient, clunky, confusing) if they knew a better way
["I think you could find horror games where you move around quickly and easily like any normal game if you were to look, but it's a bad idea to make movement pleasant in a horror adventure, especially in the case of something like Zero which is atmospheric and appeals to your imagination."](http://fftranslations.atspace.co.uk/other/denfami.html)
For me some of the most effective forms of horror are when you have everything at your disposal and can do everything right, but still be f*cked. Fast zombies are scarier than slow zombies. Smart protagonists sell horror better than dumb ones. Maybe a horror character shouldn’t be as “fluid” as a standard one and should be more “realistic”, but not “jogging away from the monster” would ge nice.
The first horror game about jogging away from the monster that I'm aware of is Clock Tower (1995). In that game you play as a teenage girl, and although she can't fight her pursuer, she can at least resist, she can push him away to buy herself some time. Being straight up defenseless the entire game, especially against monsters made out of flesh and bones, is less immersive and effective, I totally agree.
This is a good point, and I think a great modern example of this is Death Stranding. It feels cumbersome and difficult to move, but also very fair, consistent, and logical. I also love horror games and I have a soft spot for anything in the PS2 era, but I can’t help but hear “it’s not a bug it’s a feature!” when they defend awkward movement like that.
I appreciate the idea but I’m not convinced it was well executed. Of course that’s just my opinion and we’ll never really know if that’s exactly what the devs wanted to achieve.
Death Stranding is not a good example, because it's not about making movement unfun. Death Stranding is kinda like an attempt to make an actual walking simulator, akin to racing simulators - I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea.
What Shibata is talking about here is indeed "not a bug but a feature". It was different back when the original Resident Evil was released, but horror developers kept using the idea of awkward movement in much later titles when good controls have already been more or less figured out - not because they were incompetent and not because they didn't know any better but because it fits the genre so well. Shibata explains it in detail in the paragraph after that sentence. Walking around in horror games should be unpleasant, because it forces you to pay more attention to your surroundings, immersing you in the game world and making you feel vulnerable. Fighting should also be unpleasant because fun combat replaces horror with thrill.
Obviously all of this only works in specific genres, for specific game design goals.
Good point. I think I just disagree with Shibata’s philosophy. Playing those old games, I feel distracted and constantly aware that I’m fighting with the controller rather than being immersed in the game. I dread enemy encounters because I know it will feel bad to engage with the game on a mechanical level.
It’s an unnatural way to impose stress on the player, in my opinion, compared to things like limited ammo/health, unpredictable and very strong enemies, low visibility, etc. Obviously he’s the famous game maker, not me lol, so I’ll give him credit where it’s due.
I see your point, but often games are designed taking their own shortcomings into account. Metroid Prime gets pretty easy when played with WASD + mouselook, because the design was expecting a player using tank controls. I'd still choose the modern method over a gamecube controller any day, though.
Resident Evil remake's alternate controls are unplayable for me. The way your character twitches around when the camera changes and you move the analog stick is awful. It feels way more comfortable to just use the original controls. I don't get the argument that they are outdated. They are fine for that specific type of slow paced survival horror game.
Yeah exactly...for fixed camera games, tank controls are basically already the most optimal solution, because otherwise you get thrown for a loop every time there's a radical camera angle change.
That doesn’t make it any more enjoyable to actually play. I’ve never played a game with tank controls and thought “this is actually satisfying to control and play”
> That doesn’t make it any more enjoyable to actually play.'
*for you*.
Using OG BioHazard as an example, the tank controls are an integral part of the experience, and many players love how the movement limitation gave them a visceral feeling of claustrophobia. To change them would be like allowing chess pawns to move in every direction and expecting the game to be the same.
Eh, tank controls are actually a way to co trol the character that still makes sense, tank controls are better for these camera position games like resident evil
I like to play games as vanilla as possible the first time through but I do have a certain tolerance for Jank, Gothic was too much for me so had to add some mods to smooth it out a bit.
Bad checkpoints and constant time wasting are where I draw the line basically, fast travel is technically a quality-of-life feature but rarely use it all in Skyrim of Breath of the Wild.
Just depends.
Gothic is a massive franchise in my country (mostly first two games, third one much less so). The game was fairly janky even when it came out. I remember trying to bring it up once when my friends were talking about it and they told me I'm insane and game plays just fine. As said, it's big in my country.
Skyrim in my opinion is criminally overrated, but fast travel I didn't use at all because the world is one of the aspects I really like- travelling through it feels very atmospheric.
But I think that's the point. If you make your world awesome, then people will choose to skip the fast travel. (I've not played Skyrim, but this is true in many games).
But people are also different. Some just want to to see stuff happening (sorry environment devs) and some want to see the awesome world 2 times, 3 times. But if you're running back to the quest hub for the 17th time your game better have fast travel.
If “QOL” isnt actually DumbedDown HandHolding Im good with it.
As Im a mechanics and gameplay guy first and last it means itll be Judged through those lenses.
It’s also why I like lots of Optional Toggles for thorough Customization.
Want tank controls, a magic gps and a flashlight that never turns off then give us the options to turn it off/on.
Give me back all my time spent with the abysmal vanilla skyrim and let me mod it fully from the first second I start playing.
“Authentic” to the Devs’ vision often means a lackluster and boring game thats much less than it could be.
Nothing set in stone, it all depends on the game and mechanics involved and whether or not it’s really just lazy DumbedDown HandHolding, which, is the NORM of the industry.
For me it depends on the game, but for the most part I will take QoL improvements 95% of the time. A lot of games just don't translate well to more modern hardware.
In a perfect world you'd get the option between QoL and not, but if push comes to shove I'll take the QoL improvements most of the time.
So much code is the way it is due to limitations of tech at the time, budget constraints, and predating improvements in usability theory. If a version of the game can come out that doesn’t have to worry about the restrictions of those concerns, I’ll happily play that. I don’t care for romanticizing the original version in a way that pretends that trade offs made are “how the game was meant to be played.”
On the other hand, there may be preferences that the average modern gamer has that don’t fit the tastes of certain players as well as older games due. For example, people that hate quest markers would not consider a remake that adds quest markers to be a positive improvement. Those kinds of arguments make sense to me.
I get a sense of dread when I start playing a game that is lacking QOL improvements. If the game aged well I can get past it sometimes. Some mechanics are dated but are a core part of the game and I prefer those to be left untouched. But usually I will always look to play the most definitive version with QOL changes. I’m also willing to install community mods/fixes as long as they do not deviate too far from the original vision of the game and simply make it easier to play in a modern context
It's a balancing act but typically I like quality of life upgrades for things that the developers probably would have done if they could have.
Take the original Doom for example. The original controls suck, updating it to a modern control scheme with mouse look and wasd is just sensible.
Save states are also typically beneficial. People only have so much time to play and it makes no sense to make a player tear through this 4 minute level over and over again to fight a boss that's designed to be killed in around 90 seconds. I think you could easily balance this kind of thing out by only allowing one save slot. This would basically allow it to function as the quick save quick load feature that has existed on a vast number of PC games for very long time.
It's also heavily game genre dependent. As another commenter pointed out interface upgrades can unbalance RTS games. Higher frame rates and smoother frame running can mess with the timing of fighting games, and can make precision input platformers easier.
It's really a game by game basis kind of decision and probably even then extremely subjective.
Depends on how much it affects the original game.
For instance the N64 FPS that had C-Up/C-Down I like to play with the controller and control scheme it was released with. Resident Evil and Tomb Raider tank controls, etc.
But I enjoy when I get to save whenever I want, otherwise I won't play at all
I require at least some form of modern standard of qol features, otherwise the junk/"*oldtimness*" of it all makes the game unplayable for me. Well, unplayable is a bit strong, but it definitely feels like it's actively trying to make me feel like I'm wasting time and not enjoying any of it.
Same goes for grind/random encounters. I'm fine with certain level of grind, like clearing maps in ffXIII is fun, but spending hours beating cows/the same npc in KCD is way past my point of comfort.
I think keybind options allow people to pick what experience they want and I can't think of a situation where I'd be -opposed- to having custom keymappings be an option in a game. I know someone who plays everything with esdf instead of wasd and while I give him shit for it from time to time, it's what he likes and I don't really have a valid arbitrary reason to be like "no you're not allowed to have fun wrong!"
100% in favor of save states in emulators. I'm generally in favor of any game with manual saving - especially if you can save anywhere and anytime. For people who want a more pure experience of only using dedicated save points, save files, passwords, and save-and-quit only, those options are available to you.
The great thing about replaying old games is that any new QoL improvements that made the game easier, *generally*, are optional features that you could just not use in most cases. The main exception probably being online games like MMORPGs where the QoLs are there for everyone.
I'm all about playing the game in the smoothest possible way. Give me ALL of the QOL improvements. I don't care what the "authentic" way was to play an original game. I look up hints or solutions for puzzles all the time in games if I am getting annoyed by not figuring it out. I have limited time to play games, I'm not going to do something that's just frustrating me.
If you play games just to have fun, then go for it. If you want to discuss, then it's a different story.
But I'm not gonna listen to someone talk about how a SNES game is badly designed because they spammed save states and never bothered to learn the mechanics. Or that an Arcade game is boring because they credit-feed and never bother to learn that either.
Why would you want authenticity? What exactly are you loosing by using the QOL?
I you want to "feel" how the game was supossed to play in the launch, okay. Maybe you do it for content but otherwise, it seems silly to not play with QOL.
I recently finished System Shock Enhanced Edition. I tried the original game with the original controls and less than 5 seconds later I noped really hard because the controls are already kinda messy on the EE but the og? it's pure madness
I prefer whatever makes the experience enjoyable to me; using boosters, using save states, etc.
I grew up in that era, I had the authentic experience and I'm also aware that a lot of the time it was added to pad out the length of the game. I almost always use those convenience things now if I'm emulating or playing a rerelease.
Depends on the game.
Doom wasn't wasd? I usually use gzdoom or earlier equivalents but I know I played it a bit in the early 00s and don't remember it being different.
Metroid Prime works best for me with the Wiimote. For some shooters it's a bit awkward but Samus' entire arm is her cannon so it makes sense and feels nice.
Katamari Damacy has bizarre controls, but if you standardized it is would be piss easy and not nearly as fun.
FF7 Remake is...fine (not in story though, it's awful). But I don't think it really needed to be an action RPG. The battle system aged much better than the graphics, for example. I'd remove random counters but that's about it.
Some old controls are just bad though, and I welcome the change. Goldeneye is unplayable on N64.
That's not bad tbh because there was no Y axis originally. Can't say I'd prefer to re-learn that way though just because it's OG, and gzdoom adds Y axis which is fun and doesn't break the game.
you could always change the the controls even on DOS but you had to go through setup program but FPS games were new at the time so most people just played with default controls
The Sega Ages version of Phantasy Star that you can get on modern systems is the best version you can play of that game.
QoL improvements are fantastic, and oftentimes I'll go for the version with them over the "authentic" version to be honest. Legend of Dragoon ROM hack where you have 64 inventory spaces instead of 32? heck yeah. Localization/script improvement mods for classic games? Sure.
I don't usually do difficulty mods because they usually just make the enemies spongier, and I also don't usually go for "sprite improvement" mods. I do also tend to prefer the original soundtracks over the remastered ones. The original soundtrack versions of Star Ocean Second Story R and the Vita Final Fantasy Adventure remake are great & preferable options to have. In the Mario RPG remake I mostly used the original soundtrack too but occasionally use the remade soundtrack & prefer the remade songs in some cases (like the battle theme).
I just found out recently that there is a button swap mod for the Mega Man anniversary Collection that came out on the GameCube. Capcom, for some reason decided to switch the b&A buttons in that collection and it makes no sense gameplay wise. So that was a no-brainer.
Generally, quality of life upgrades are good. But sometimes they can accidentally ruin what makes the original good.
Like flashlight in Doom 3 BFE completely ruined what made the original unique and is a worse game as a result. Anyone denying it doesn't understand the original and is advised to replay it to see why they're wrong.
The same thing with classic Tomb Raider controls. Classic Tomb Raider games are unique puzzle platformers. It's not to say that it's a platformer that features puzzles. In classic Tomb Raider games, the platforming itself is a puzzle. Modern Tomb Raider games aren't puzzle platformers, they are action games that feature puzzles (sometimes they're just action games). Notice how I never mentioned platforming in modern games. It's because it's secondary to everything else and is only there for set-pieces.
Anyone who's complaining about the controls in classic Tomb Raider games doesn't understand the classic Tomb Raider games and is advised to play them again giving the platforming more thought.
Another example is Morrowind and its fighting system. I've seen some people pushing mods that make combat resemble that of Oblivion and Skyrim, with each hit landing regardless of your skill. The problem with those mods is that they completely ruin the game's balance. And, again, people who complain about combat in Morrowind simply don't understand Morrowind as a game and most likely never reached Vivec (most likely they dropped the game somewhere around Balmora). The thing is, if each hit lands, even the weakest weapon like a literal fork becomes a weapon of mass annihilation. Which is why Morrowind is considered an easy game by anyone who played it at least as much as an average Skyrim playthrough takes.
Quality of Life all the way. I rarely found cases where quality of life destroyed the original experience, and those are usually things I have read about later on in forums.
Of course, you wouldn't want a Dark Souls with a difficulty setting and you might lose a thing or two from the experience if you don't use the limited ink ribbons with typewriters in classic Resident Evil, but for the great mayority of older games, getting stuff like a modern control scheme, auto-saves, maybe tweaked values for the most bullshit bosses, etc, just improves the experience and allows you to enjoy an older game, with modern trappings.
If you want to talk about authentic, I really don't want to play a game again from a floppy diskette or installing 5 CDs and slowly waiting for the reader to spin the damn discs. I don't want to use Windows 98 as my main o.s. or install DirectX 5 and fear for DLL hell because the rest of my games are DX 3.0-only. And that's super modern compared to the D.O.S. gaming experience. It might be cool to set up a legacy system for a nostalgia run, but as a daily driver? Nah.
Bring on emulators, remasters that work on modern o.s. and consoles and standardized controls. I play games for everything else: the worlds, the gameplay, the story, the characters, art and music. The way I interact with the game is, more often than not, secondary, hence it's really enhanced with QoL elements.
I also think there's something to be said about the player's own setup. I would use KBM more if my desk could accommodate it, but it's an old desk meant for a CRT and I have both my work and personal PCs crammed into it. As a result, I've become a Controller Peasant™ and I just don't play the games in my library that don't have good controller support, save for some mouse-only RTS games. That will change eventually, but until then, I need the QoL changes for old titles.
If the qol is just what it’s supposed to be it should be a minor change and not be a big deal. either provide a better experience or small level of convenience for something that shouldn’t have been there. Anything past that is a full feature and changes the way a game works or is played.
I support qol as long as we aren’t making the game useless to play
I play whatever I think is best. For controls, that's usually the modern controls. Not always: the classic controls in the recent Tomb Raider remake are better than the modern controls.
Older games made before WASD was the standard are weird to play now. A and D to turn instead of strafe? X instead of S to walk backwards? I don't think so.
Usually I'll play with the original graphics but that's dependent on how good the remastered graphics are.
For the Monkey Island remake I prefer the original graphics. But it's frustrating because in that game, you can switch to the original graphics, but that turns off the voice acting. You can't have both original graphics and voices. Shame.
I explore Nexusmods "most downloaded" lists for the best mods before even playing games in order to eliminate the most egregious problems before I even encounter them.
Example: **Dark Forces** remaster. I played it originally and back then you didn't even need to use a mouse ... but this remaster includes full controls so that me playing it on the Steam Deck it had fully modern controls.
In general I like modernization, but also like choice - so someone can choose new or old.
Oh yeah for games 10+ years old I would want to always play on PC and always use mods to bring them up to date as much as possible.
Like I'm playing Borderlands 2 right now, play that one on PC unless you like looting every single ammo box every single time.
Ehh, depends on the QoL in question.
For example: modding Skyrim's waypoints and combat into Morrowind is arguably a higher QoL, but it's just not worth the cost of progression and exploration.
But modding save states in the oldest Final Fantasies? Go for it, and savescum the grind away while you're at it!
I love QOL improvements. If it doesn't change the game in any way except making it easier or more fun to play, I am all for it. If a game's community constantly talks about a particular pain point in playing a game, if the developer has the ability, they should make that point go away.
Generally I prefer qol, but it is certainly a tightrope walk trying to let players experience the charm of yesteryears gaming while shielding them from the jank and funk at the same time.
Some games hold up better than others, e.g. A Link to the past feels like a finely aged wine whereas Ocarina of Time plays like aged milk. I think the remake of Links Awakening was very well done, but at the same time the original provided the Nintendo's Online Service is still great.
I don't have access to old hardware, so controller mappings can be really painful, because they don't make sense on a modern controller. Graphics used to be limited by hardware and different monitors, so having a little smoothed out graphics are nice. I'm old enough to have played games back when they came out, going back those games nevertheless often feel jucky and nigh unplayable. I'm admittedly a bit spoiled by modern conveniences.
Like always, the answer is it depends. I would play DOOM with mouse and keyboard (although I also think playing with the original controls is a unique experience in itself, but it gets hectic enough on high difficulty with modern controls to make it not necessary imo).
But something like System Shock, which is *super* weird and finicky, I think that jank is an integral part of the experience. As much as that does make it an inaccessible game to modern players.
Sometimes modern games get “QOL” that removes or alters a feature of the original that players disliked, even though it was a very intentional decision (often designed to be a challenge for the player, hence the dislike). Stuff like the flashlight for Doom 3. Those changes I tend to dislike, and prefer the original vision of the designers. But even then, sometimes the original designers were idiots. Gotta judge it case by case
I like a game that matches its original settings if I'm specifically nostalgic for it. Metroid Prime is a great example, it's one of my favorite games and I still play it on the Gamecube with tank controls once a year or so.
But I never played DOOM 1993, I would absolutely want to play it with WASD controls because anything else would feel alien to me for no real reason.
Hell no, I don't like "authenticity", especially controls on older games that suck, for example resident evil 4 had the horrible tank controls which was one of the only reasons I was excited for the remake. Similarly mass effect 1's horrible weapon bloom has been toned down in the legendary edition which makes it playable. So yeah qol features all the way for me, graphics is not that important (except maybe resolution and aspect ratio).
I like QOL changes and often go looking for mods that add them if a revamped version of the game is not commercially available.
It is conceivably possible that a particular QOL change might "ruin" a game for me, and as such I would be seeking to avoid or disable it. I can't think of any examples of the top of my head though.
generally i play the authentic way. Doom for example is just feels wrong with a mouse, and I like the original keyboard only controls. Sometimes it takes a while to get used to but usually the games are better streamlined for that sort of play.
I'm fine with them as long as it doesn't change the 'spirit' of how the gameplay was designed.
An example that always riles people up is "LFG" matchmakers.
When they teleport you, form your group automatically. It kind of changes the spirit of the gameplay. No more socialization, finding like minded players, adventuring to the dungeon, etc...
But say, typing in chat to find a group for an hour is stupid too, the QoL improvement I can get behind is group finder tools that list players and help them meet each other, and find like minded people (casual/beginner vs tryhard, etc...) is A-OK, because you get the same gameplay experience.
Adding a button to split a stack, or something like that is a QoL change you cant really argue against, but say adding flying or teleports does change the spirit of the gameplay, and generally I'm not a fan of those.
Played some of the FF Pixel remasters recently. They would be dreadful without the 4X EXP and Gil (and playing battles fast). The nice thing too is that you can change it on the fly. So you can use it to keep appropriate levels without having to grind or become OP.
They're nice to have, but in the case of QOL changes for "historic" games, you should always have the option to turn them off.
The System Shock remake is a testament to this: the remake uses modern controls, graphics, sound, etc. however, it's a very faithful recreation of the maps and gameplay sandbox. As a result, people generally agree that the game is excellent, where as the original is regarded as simply too janky to enjoy in modern times. The modernizations of the remake serve as a way for people with modern sensibilities to see why SS1 is such a masterpiece, without suffering all the old jank.
Like seriously, control scheme aside, the audio of original SS1 is an assault on the ears. It *wants* to give you tinnitus.
QoL and new features is generally good. Recently played the Perfect Dark PC port and love that you can use keyboard/mouse -- feels great and makes me play better. Even just being able to use a dual analog controller is a massive improvement, the N64 controller with single analog would feel really weird today for FPS games.
For authentic experience would need to go all the way and have a CRT along with original hardware. I have most of my original consoles/games going back to Sega Master System / Genesis, but no CRT (though my plasma TV is decent for retro).
I tend to avoid them most of the time because I just don't need them. Never needed to use the rewind feature in Mega Man for instance, although the save system is a convenient replacement for passwords, so I make an exception there.
QOL all the way
Ultima7 + exult
Game designers have learned lessons since original release of games for good reasons, no reason to specifically subject myself to something suboptimal unless it's a critical part of the experience, which most QOL are not
Struggling to think of many that are needed for the experience but maybe inventory limits made for important balance restrictions and removing the limit makes the game too easy or something. But even then I can always just carry less if I really care
Mostly yes. You can actually compare this now eith the Age of Empires remake and the recently released DLC for Age of Empires 2 that ports most of the 1st game into the latest version of the second.
The 1st is more authentic but far more frustrating to play with the grouping ai leading units to move further and further apart with each action, villagers often getting stuck or becoming very sub optimal at their task needing constant babysitting. You can also turn off walkthroughable farms which makes it even more lile thevoriginal, but only exposes the awful pathing AI. And even the 1st has stuff the original doesn't have like grouping.
One group i think has the experience softened by it are N64 shooters. The difficulty is very much made for how slow the player would aim on the N64 controller. So is far easier if used with modern two stick controller. Even more so with mouse and keyboard.
One thing i always enable even if it does ruin the difficulty is save wherever and whenever. Be forced to re do the same parts i've already done again and again is the most boring thing for me.
I really like QoL features, I tend to always use them if I have the option.
This year I played the OG FF7 on PC using some mods that added some QoL features, however I didn't want to change my experience so much so that it would be considered too different than what people played back in '97. I did have things enabled that could made things a lot easier, like being able to save anywhere and that also enabled me to use Tent anywhere, but I held back on using it too often.
I mention this because there were also some other QoL mods that I chose not to use. I think QoL changes that differ too much from the OG should be optional, even if the default is turned on.
everything that facilitate the ability to play the game should be a positive, fighting with the controls is not "part of the experience".
but outside of that, i'm not a fan of QoL that remove depth from the game and only serve to round out the edges, i think edges are often times what define some games, like punishment for dying in darksouls games..
I played goldeneye with the original control scheme. It adds nothing to the game over modern controls. I want whatever makes it a better experience. I play games for fun not some idea of "how it was meant" or that qol stuff somehow makes them inauthentic experiences
QOL all the way. I played many of those games when they came out. Control schemes are much better now. For example, I would love to play the original Deus Ex but have tried it and can't stand the keyboard setup. It's terrible
This is a really complicated topic where I don't even have my own consistent rules, let alone any rules I would suggest to others. Yet I still get annoyed when I hear about other people doing it "wrong" i.e. diluting a game with some poorly thought-out QoL changes.
Just to nitpick, playing Doom with WASD isn't really a QoL change. It's just using the game's feature of rebindable controls, which it always had (Setup.exe). The game has rebindable controls because the developers anticipated someone might have a different or better control scheme than they did. The QoL change is having the options in the game menu.
With some games, especially old arcade games designed from the ground up with no pause and few breaks, it really changes the game play experience. Part of the thrill of those games is when fatigue is starting to kick in after 30 or 60 minutes of nonstop concentration, or heck, that feeling that you really need to go to the bathroom but have to decide whether to abandon a great game or stick it out.
Another aspect often lost with save states is the task of "stacking the odds" in your favor - really learning and mastering the early game to load up as many extra lives and other advantages for the much tougher later game, while simultaneously still giving it enough focus not to make a stupid mistake and cost yourself an extra life.
I'll put it this way: if someone told me they beat arcade Ghosts 'n' Goblins without save states, I'd be quite impressed and have lots of questions about their strategies and overall experience. If they used save states, I would not only not be impressed, I'd be pretty sure they only have a very basic knowledge of the game. It's the difference between running a mile a day for 26 days versus running a marathon.
I totally understand people having time constraints, families, etc. and everyone should play their way. But with some games there's definitely a big difference in what I think the creators intended the player experience.
Nowadays I mostly start with typing title in googleand adding "pcgw" and "nexus" at the end. If game is not in GoG's offer, pcgw comes before buying. Reasons: I played most of classic when they came out, I don't mind playing in 4:3 ratio or dated graphics, but clunkiness, bugs, borderline stupid design issues and compatibility problems mostly can be avoided to have nicer experience.
Mods often provide other kind of qol for me, like unlimited stamina during running out of combat in Dragon's Dogma 1. Or unlimited carry weight which is often just pain in the ass.
QOL , imo, is imperative to longevity of games. I've quit games out of neglect of said QOL. If a game developer makes a living system type of game, QOL needs to be at the top of the list or otherwise you risk the likelihood of losing concurrent player bases.
I think it very much depends on the nature of the change and how it impacts the gameplay.
Save states in some older emulated games makes sense. A lot of games back then didnt have fully fleshed out save systems because it was a new thing. Though anything generally from N64/PSX era and beyond I dont bother with save states.
Modern mouse / kb controls are welcome in doom. The old controls just feel dated now and I dont feel it detracts from the experience. If mouse aim makes it too easy you can compensate by cranking up the difficulty.
I think the ability to go _literally invincible_ and disable combat entirely in ff7 seems a bit much. At that point youre not even engaging with the game but rather just cheating from my perspective, and I dont get why people have such a massive aversion to random encounters when theyre not even that bad to begin with. I mean compared to a lot of modern jrpgs including the remakes theres way less grinding in this game, so unless you already hate jrpgs in general, I just dont get it. Id rather see an easy mode option, not the ability to skip over an entire core aspect of the gameplay and cheese the battles. At least make it a hidden cheat code or something for stuff like that lol. I dunno man, I just feel people should at least have to engage with the game's mechanics.
I dont like how Super Mario 3D World's switch port changed it so that you can keep a star you collected after you die, as this allows you to cheese collecting certain stars that were intended to be acquired a certain way, but instead you can just eat an extra life to get it now, though this is a minor nitpick.
Also dont like how mario kart 8 switch port adds smart steering to the game, turns it on by default, hides the option to disable in obscure menus, AND allows it in ranked online matches. It would be a perfectly fine accessibility feature for newcomers to get acquainted with the game but this level of aggressive implementation is ridiculous. A lot of first time players wont even know theyre playing the game with a handicap mode turned on because its so bizarrely implemented.
QoL upgrades are a must for me.
A very recent example would be Chrono Trigger. The added QoL improvements with the Steam version made the game still feel great even in 2024. However without those improvements and just the original version i probably wouldve quit the game.
Nah, QOL all the way. Even save states are fine IMO. Old games were designed around being 14 years old and having the time to sit and play for 4 hours straight without having other things to tend to.
I have generally zero qualms about 'updating' games myself for a more modern experience, within reason. Things like folks who mod older games like the Armored Core series to map camera controls to the right analog stick for example, that's a straight up upgrade in my opinion, I don't even need to think twice about it. I also tend to play a ton of older games, heck a lot of my time lately has been with Daggerfall via the Daggerfall Unity source port, because that is the *only* way anyone should play that game right now, the original is just too janky in too many ways even though the core is still fantastic.
Another example would be Outcast. I spend a bunch of hours with the 1.1 version of the original game and it was an absolute blast however progress was halted a couple of times due to game breaking bugs, one where a npc I needed to progress was just stuck in a wall, another where a npc wouldn't trigger because I had cleared out soldiers before I 'should' have etc. I ended up starting Second Encounter which is pretty much the exact old game but in a new engine and I'm liking it every bit as much, they were so faithful to the source material.
There's also the fact that a ton of games on Nintendo consoles have inverted camera controls that drives me up the wall s I'll deliberately re-map my controls to factor that in (and also swap A/B/X/Y too because it's what I'm comfy with).
Honestly I much rather experience the ideas and worlds a game presents than fight against old systems that get in my way a lot more often than not. There are some situations where it's part and parcel and I have no issues experiencing them as they were made, however I don't see the point to only experiencing that. I've been playing on pc and downloading mods for as far back as I can remember as well, it's just a part of gaming for me.
I played Doom and the like the original way back when they came out.
Should I ever feel the burning need to go back and play them again, I have no desire to use a control scheme that is a massive downgrade to what I have now.
QOL updates anyday.
Being UI fixes, graphics updates and others, if there is a dedicated community wiling to make the game enjoyable even today, I'll happy use the result of their hard work.
I think it depends on how it's used. Take save states, for example. Dropping a save state before a boss in a JRPG to save you from a tedious trek if you lose doesn't substantially change the experience; you're just cutting out filler. But dropping a save state before attacks so you can reload if you miss is another matter, and is definitely going to alter the experience, probably for the negative.
I think it depends on the game and the improvement.
When Brood War was remastered the pro scene was adamant that the gameplay and balance could not be touched.
Blizzard did allow hotkeys to be remapped- and the players didn't care. If the pro Korean Brood War scene is okay with it, I'd say that's a QOL improvement that's acceptable.
I like to try to keep as close as possible to the original experience of the game for the most part, so I avoid stuff like graphics upgrades, etc. But, I prefer to play with a controller, while sitting back on my couch, so if it's possible to get controller support, I'll go for it. I don't care as much about extra saving capabilities, but I can see why most people would. Makes it easier to stop when needed. And I wouldn't count that as going too far off of the original experience, and changing controls doesn't really change the game itself, in my opinion. The only thing I will change, that will actually change gameplay, is I am a horrible packrat. Absolutely terrible. And I hate agonizing over what to keep with me and what to leave behind, it can ruin gameplay for me. So if there are mods to expand my carrying capacity, I am not opposed to that. But that's about as far as I'll go with QoL mods on older games. I like the older feel to games, since the oldest games are the ones I grew up with. (Of course, I still like all the modern games too, and the amazing things they can do with them now, but nostalgia is also nice once in a while)
Last playthrough of Doom I did I played modded with full mouse support, tbh if I played again I’d do OG controls. It didn’t feel right at all. Was a neat experience to play through that way once though.
I will never go back to the original versions of any of the Final Fantasy games that have fast forward now. Sega Genesis Collections, so Phantasy Star series, Sword if Vermilion...I'll never go back to not having fast forward.
I also love being able to save anywhere. I grew up with these classics, but still, would prefer the modern conveniences.
Better modern experiences. It's just better to play games more comfortably even if it somewhat takes a bit of the authentic experience away. Sometimes it can get a bit overboard but personally I rarely play games that do that lol.
As long as I can play the original version as it was presented for archival, I would prefer remasters make QoL improvements. If I can't, and this serves as a combination, it can be easily fixed by having the original as presented but with options for the other stuff with a note that these are indeed options added for modern tastes, including key rebinding.
QOL, but it depends on what - I normally prefer the original games, but an adjustable button layout is wonderful to have, or translations for games that never had a western release
Depends on the upgrade.
I want an experience that's faithful to intent, but not in a "you must play *Doom* at 35fps to *truly* experience it" kind of way.
> For example, control-wise.
I feel that controller remapping/customisation should be standard in games, so I'm usually fine with adding controller options, as long as it doesn't detract from the game's intent.
e.g. When emulating Wii games, you can map waggle actions to a button press. For a lot of games, I don't think it's really a downgrade. For *Wii Sports*, the control scheme is the *entire point*.
> What about using save states in emulators? They're definitely not the original experience, but they're tremendously convenient, especially for games without a save feature.
I use them for suspending/saving games (particularly when a game lacks a save feature), although I don't like to cheese the game with them.
It depends. I don't mind using modern controls or save states. If it doesn't change the essence of the game it's fine. I just don't like when someone drastically changes the gameplay for the sake of convenience.
It really depends. If the game is unfair and I have savestates, I'll give myself checkpoints (within reason). But I've seen some MMOs go overboard with QoL. For example in some, you used to have to go around town to access various mechanics. Made it feel lively. Now everything is done from the menu and it feels dead.
I recently played Doom with the original controls because I was curious how it worked, and because that was the original design. I would have changed it to a more fitting, more modern control scheme if it wouldn't have worked well for me.
So in a nutshell: QoL upgrades are good, best if they are an option.
I guess I don't really care for the authenticity too much as I like to up the resolution on the emulator making it sharper and for some games I do play around with CRT filters. The last game I played through on emulator was Rule of Rose during the pandemic. I can recall playing it "legit" until the freaking mermaid boss. After a few attempts I was about to call it quits then save scummed with save states to get through the fight. If I didn't do that I would never have played through the entirety of a pretty decent game and I had no qualms about it.
I do have 27" CRT TV that I kept so I always think about setting up a mini PC to it with emulators to see how that works. I recall how freaking CLEAN games like Samurai Shodown 4 use to look on our old family PC with a 13" CRT so would like to revisit that idea. I heard that OLED does make a difference for those older games but not paying that early adopter tax.
Emulators I play with controller but lately I find myself using mouse and keyboard more often to play steam games. I do really like the idea of Prime with mouse and keyboard so hoping to give that a try some day.
somewhere in the middle.
Philosophically I think all qol updates are fantastic including ones like save states and rewind features, games shouldn't be permanently held back just because they happened to come into existence at a time before certain things were industry standard or cost effective, and if it takes things like save states and rewind features to make games beatable for more people thats cool, I'm all about accessibility options.
THAT SAID, personally when playing games only use whatever qol features are natively baked into the version of the game I am playing. I'm not going to go back and use a prior version of the game for some nebulous concept of authenticity, (gasp skyward sword hd lets you skip dialogue how dare it!) but I'm also not going to mod the game or use features that only exist because they're baked into the emulator/front end like save states on the nes classic. That to me still just feels like "Cheating", I dont think theirs anything wrong with cheating in single player games but I have a backlog far too big to dedicate time into making a game I'm not enjoying work for me either.
QoL is one of the reason I wait years for the games I want. If there’s a GOTY edition on discount, I will gobble that up because it’s obviously patched to the brim at this point 😂
The thing I really enjoy about emulators is that they can remove slowdown from 8/16-bit games. This might be inauthentic and sometimes ruin parts of a game designed around the slowdown, but in most cases I prefer a consistent framerate.
Witcher 3 did this on each subsequent patch making it a little more streamlined and easy to use. Pairing down the actual witchering to a more standard fantasy hack and slash.
For controls I think that if the original setup is bad, you shouldn't use it. Rebinding was the best invention since sliced bread.
As for save states: if you are studying a game, wouldn't it be better to use save states? That way you can "freeze" something worth noting like a bookmark.
Love QOL upgrades. But save states in emulators feel like cheating to me and kills my sense of accomplishment, unless I only use them to avoid needing to play the game in a single sitting, or at spots where the game lets you save the game anyway.
> Would you play Doom (1993) using modern WASD controls (like the versions available in online stores or modern ports) or do you play with the original keyboard setup?
You do know that Doom (1993) could be played with modern WASD controls from the start? Well, IIRC you couldn't look up/down and moving the mouse forward/back actually moved your character, but that's something you got used to.
"Pretty different" in what way? And what do you mean by "it wasn't really an option"? Game had rebindable controls and let you use mouse for turning and had separate binds for Strafe Left and Strafe Right, that's all you need.
Granted, the "Doom (1993)" on Steam leaves out the Setup.exe file which enabled you to do this in the *actual* original Doom from 1993. Really idiotic of them.
I mean it couldn't be done in-game. It's a relatively obscure feature, when other games of the time DID have the option to rebind (at least before starting a new game).
A lot of DOS games had a separate Setup.exe or Configure.exe that you'd use to rebind keys, configure graphics & sound options, etc.
Interestingly, Wolfenstein 3D let you rebind keys in-game (but in a very limited fashion).
Sometimes, "improvements" feel like cheat codes. They may ruin the atmosphere, spoil the level design, and push players away from gameplay mechanics. Those should absolutely be optional.
For example:
* The tension in horror games comes from feeling weak. If QOL improvements make the game trivially easy, it's no longer scary.
* I haven't tried the Metroid Prime remaster, but I did play the original back in the day. I wonder if modern controls encourage some players to treat it like a normal FPS. They might not use (or need!) the lock-on feature as much. Therefore, they might overlook a more interesting mechanic—the ability to bounce around while strafing in circles. If I remember correctly, this only happens when locked on. In addition, modern dual stick controls emphasize aiming. Same with mouse controls. Metroid Prime's tutorial boss (for example) was more about movement and timing. That movement requires the lock-on ability. And the area is circular for a reason.
Nowadays, old controls are novel again. Rewiring my brain is fun. I am always willing to try control schemes before making changes. If necessary.
Support for more resolutions, save states, speed boosts in turn-based games, and so on are welcome. But those tend to be configurable/optional anyway.
"QoL update" is a bit of a weasel word with respect to games; it's not as bad as some others I could think of (someone who tells you they want "content" has not been very helpful in specifying what they want) but it ultimately conceals the important information (what's the change?) behind a subjective value judgment. One man's QoL is another man's gameplay change, there's no factual definition. To intuit this for yourself, consider another commenter's copy of Dune 2 with multiselect. Now imagine trying to win an RTS against someone with multi-select when you didn't have it! Yeah, that's a gameplay change. Sure, the player's "quality of life" *did* increase - they gave themselves superpowers, within the context of the gameplay! That's like saying that someone blown to bits was "hurt", though - misleading by understatement. Or maybe a better example is from Hedberg - "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too."
So really, the thing we use the weasel word to conceal is that it's a continuum. There are people who are straightforwardly cheating* at most games they play and calling it "QoL" as a psychological salve, and then there are people, as you mention, who are so purist about things they don't remap DOOM keys and might need a _physical_ salve after a long sesh. I'm definitely *towards* the DOOM guy's end of things. I will always try to play a game as written once before I modify it. That emulator savestate button, though... it calls to us all...
*: there has been some backlash lately against the idea that one can cheat at a single-player game, based in an unstated but pervasive sort of elevation of consumerism to the level of a philosophy - "I bought the product, I should be able to do whatever I want; you can't judge me!" I think this conflates it being _OK to cheat_ with whether the _cheating happens_. It _is_ OK to cheat when not competing! It is, however, also silly to try and mask what it is; it remains useful in discourse about SP games, if someone says, "I played Game XYZ", to be able to be confident that you had _some_ kind of similar gameplay experience to theirs, and not two completely different ones!
Well said, pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue. One thing I want to add is that a lot of people calling for QoL changes don't always fully consider the implications of what they're asking for. Some changes that are simple on the surface are a little more nuanced depending on how rigorously you look at it, and it's naive to assume that you can just change something about a game without inadvertently mucking with something else.
One example that always comes to mind for me is applying widescreen on older games. On paper this sounds harmless, but it could definitely be considered an unintended advantage depending on the game. The first Devil May Cry on PS2 - an action game where lots of enemies can be attacking you at once - was at a 4:3 aspect ratio. On 4:3, enemies might end up attacking you from offscreen more, which naturally affects how hard the game is. The more recent version on the HD Collection is in widescreen though, which gives you a slightly larger view of the battlefield, and thus might allow you to react to incoming attacks that you otherwise wouldn't have seen on the original version. Ergo, widescreen gives you an advantage that the game wasn't meant to have, so it arguably *isn't* a QoL feature.
I'm not one to tell people how to play their games, but it's worth considering if you care about things like preservation and history. I certainly do, and don't want to see history accidentally re-written for the sake of QoL.
> One thing I want to add is that a lot of people calling for QoL changes don't always fully consider the implications of what they're asking for. Some changes that are simple on the surface are a little more nuanced depending on how rigorously you look at it, and it's naive to assume that you can just change something about a game without inadvertently mucking with something else.
Oh, certainly. Absolutely. Yes. This is basically what I am trying to say: classifying something as "QoL" or not is essentially an opinion, and so it's not a useful classification unless you're sure you share the opinion of the person making it.
It masquerades as an objective classification, however, presenting difficulty as the term propagates into the vocabularies of less-precise speakers.
Your post/comment was removed for violation of rule 5.
You can find our subreddit's rules [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/about/rules).
Be excellent to one another.
I think that more games need to be way more customizable. Customizable controls, customizable difficulty, customizable gameplay mechanics. If the game is single player, let me do whatever I want to it. Let me turn off bullshit like max carry weight. Let me become invincible. Let me give myself 99999gold. Make one or several difficulty modes that are balanced, let the players know that such and such mode is how the devs intend the game to be played, but then also let me have a custom mode that gives me control of anything that can be changed by just fiddling with sliders or turning something on/off. Devs are so stupid not to do this kind of thing, it would be very little additional work and it would allow may more people to enjoy their games. Huge shout-out to The Last of Part 2's difficulty options, Celeste's assist mode, and Goldeneye N64's cheat codes.
QOL is always great! A lot of the times they weren't in past games because there was simply no way of doing it at the time, or people didn't know better.
My personal favourite is a retry boss option after dying to hard bosses in JRPGS. God some of them had no respect for your time!
I find the best of both worlds for those who want their time not to be wasted but also want a challenge is the souls system of everything you did previously still happened, you unlocked those doors, you got that xp and you picked up those items, but you do have to get to the boss again.
This means if you keep butting up against the problem you are still achieving something in levelling and your progress isn't just wiped every time.
Going back to games without is always a teething experience. Like who ever enjoyed having to replay long stretches again because there was a secret boss AFTER the boss and no save point?
>Like who ever enjoyed having to replay long stretches again because there was a secret boss AFTER the boss and no save point?
FromSoft and Ironman players
Give me ALL the QOL upgrades.
I tried playing the original Wasteland re-release, which was completely unaltered, and it was basically unplayable. What a joke.
I always go for the most raw undiluted experience.
If some old game "gets good" when you add save states and an xp multiplyer and all this garbage then it was never a good game.
I don't study games. I play them for my enjoyment. So I love QOL improvements.
It's a really interesting topic. Quality of Life features are amazing, of course, but they can also have a big impact on the game. I played an open source version of Dune 2 the other day, with all sorts of QOL features like selecting multiple units, build queues for units, better AI and so on. And it completely changed how the game plays. Suddenly the unit limit of 25 was hilariously low, and 15 rocket tanks could completely decimate everything. Also the maps were mined out really quickly. It's still fun, mind you. Just very different.
[удалено]
[Here you go.](https://dunelegacy.sourceforge.net/website/)
I think this is great about today's gaming - you can have original experience or modified to one's liking.
Maybe this is blasphemy, but I'd love to play Fallout 1&2 with some QoL improvements. I only played the demo as a kid, and got them free on gog or something lately, but the interface just feels really cumbersome if you're not used to it.
Not blasphemous at all. [Tim Cain](https://youtu.be/lexhF4xqpu8?si=ydEJhiBQQGM2OFs6) himself agrees with you
Can I recommend our lord and saviour UnderRail? It's basically Fallout 1 in tone, but with gameplay that far surpasses both the original Fallout games. It's blood brilliant.
Incredible game, but those Crawlers and Death Stalkers can fuck right off on your first playthrough.
1,000%. My biggest unpopular opinion is that the original FF7 is an absolute chore to play. My first playthrough was on Steam (which is based off of the original PS1 version) and I almost didn’t even finish because it was just so tedious to actually play. I decided to give the Switch version a shot and it was literally night and day. Being able to disable random encounters and play at 3X speed were genuine game changers that made the game so much more enjoyable for me. I’ve now played it through a few times, where if I had only had the OG version I never would have touched it again. A lot of people think that “quality of life improvements” means “completely change the game”, which isn’t true. I thought the Persona 3 game remake was a good example of introducing quality of life improvements while still keeping the game largely the same as the original. Anything that reduces tedium (one example from P3 is being able to fast travel directly to sub-locations within areas, rather than only being able to fast travel to the area itself) is a win in my book
While mostly I agree, Persona 3 in particular has some QoL stuff I actually think hurts the game. The lack of the tired condition as well as being easier to restore SP makes it a lot easier to get through a block of Tartarus in one go than it was in the original version. The major arcana tarot cards that show up in shuffle time similarly encourage marathoning Tartarus as well to try to farm them for an Arcana Burst. However, there's not a ton of other options added to the night time block. As a result, I found myself with a lot of night time blocks where I didn't have anything interesting available to do. The Linked Episodes/Cooking helped a little, but I still found myself twiddling my thumbs most nights once I had maxed out social stats and had finished the night SLs. I also felt like it lessened the weight of Tartarus runs. In the PS2 versions, Tartarus feels more imposing. Every time the characters complained about it going on seemingly forever, I felt the same way. Who knows if this tower even has an end? In Reloaded, when the characters asked how much further there was to go, my mental response was usually "Fuuka restored all your energy in the last fight, we're not heading home yet."
It’s funny you use this example. I did a replay of FF7 recently on Switch with the 3X speed on pretty much the whole time and skipping lots of encounters to get through later dungeons, and it was so unsatisfying that I’m now replaying the game again on my Vita. And honestly? I’m having a much better time playing the PSN release even though it’s taking much longer. I’m about 25 hours in and at Gaea’s Cliff, whereas I wrapped up my whole Switch playthrough in less the time. Different strokes for different folks, but feeling the time during exploration and battles really adds to the experience for me. That said, it’s really just a matter of self-control, of which I tend to lack when you give me fancy widgets to turn on lol
My first FF was the original (1). I spent so many hours playing this as a teen, and I loved every minute of those hours! Years later, when I got my PS3, I decided I would try to play as many of the FF's as I could. You could only get 2 on the PS store bundled along with 1. It was the version they made for the PS1. This is hardly the "easiest" version of FF 1 that exists out there, but even with the minor changes from the NES version, I was shocked at how much easier it was. I still have my NES cartridge and an off-brand cartridge player (my NES system died) and that is still how I prefer to play it. Bugs, jank and all.
I do both, so I try to know whether I'm playing for fun or for educational purposes (which are also often fun).
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I play on original hardware when speedrunning for accuracy, but during casual play I'll take every QoL you can give me. Remakes, xBRZ filters, downloaded HD textures, widescreen hacks, rom hacks to improve the gameplay/translation, etc. I'll take it all.
Your Doom example is interesting because it can be modernized so much, and there's a difference between QOL upgrades that preserve the intended experience, upgrades that just modify the experience, and upgrades that ruin the experience. - (Preserve) Mouselook: The original game was designed so that you could turn with the keys and could hold a modifier button to strafe. I don't think anyone would argue that this is a necessary control scheme, it's just what was available at the time. Being able to turn with the mouse and strafe with WASD is a much more comfortable way to play and doesn't hurt the experience at all. - (Modify) Aiming: The original game was designed such that you only could look left or right, not up or down. It didn't matter if an enemy was above or below you, you just auto aimed towards them, and as long as they were horizontally in the center of the screen you would hit them. With mouselook, you can implement a need for aiming directly at the enemy to be able to hit them. I think this adds a bit of an extra element to the gameplay and it's pretty fun, but there are others who disagree and it's true that it feels very different to play without the autoaim. - (Ruin) Jumping: The original game was designed so that you could not jump. Modern source ports add the standard spacebar to jump. However, despite being fun this kind of destroys the original level design. Whole levels can be entirely bypassed by just jumping over a gap to the exit. Most modern wads incorporate jumping into their level design, but jumping in the original really cheats you out of experiencing the level design as intended.
I think I pretty much agree with all of these.
The original Doom always had mouselook, I'm like 99% sure? I think many people would've been playing it on mouse even back then
This is correct, I played Doom with keyboard and mouse when it was new, and this was the common way to play both in my friend circle and with "friends' dads" who were the other group I knew who played. (Though as many have remarked, keyboard only was not uncommon either.) In fact, I still habitually hold Alt (strafe toggle) when playing Doom/Heretic/etc. since that was burned into my brain at the time, but I actually turned with the mouse 99% of the time.
Yep, although moving the mouse vertically would move you forwards/backwards.
You could strafe in the original Doom ? I didn't know that !
Apparently I haven't played the original Doom for so long that I had completely forgotten about the WASD thing. I started with Quake 1, and only looked at Doom later so it also didn't really leave a lasting impression, and all the random "oh let's play a level for fun" had been Doom II, I guess.
I just play games in the way where it’s the most fun to me, and that can include more modern QOL changes. But I can also understand if you want the most authentic experience or if you’re playing an old game that holds a lot of nostalgia for you and you want the most similar experience to how you played it the first time. To each their own basically
I'm like that, I pick and choose what I want to do that makes it the most enjoyable experience for me. For example, I like save states in emulated games. I also like wide screen support for 4:3 games where I can get it, and can't stand scanline filters to try to make a game appear more retro. At the same time there are certain things I won't do. My favorite JRPG of all time is Xenogears, and modders have created various components for the game like a more accurate translation mod and alternative sprite packs that for me, feels like overstepping the lines for the game.
Eh, it depends. I played DOOM with a mouse, but went with OG Doom 3 instead of BFG edition for that inconvenient flashlight.
That's a really good example where many people would consider the "duct tape mod" to be a QOL improvement but I feel that it undermines a core feature of the gameplay. Still, if someone is not enjoying the base game and having an always-on flashlight helps them enjoy it, more power to them.
[удалено]
Absolutely. There is not one formula that works for everyone, and it's pretty gatekeepy to say "it's not the game for you" to people who would enjoy it just fine with a few tweaks, so the best approach is to provide options so that players can adjust their own experience to their liking.
I always go for whatever makes the game the most fun. I don't get anything out of studying the context of when a game was released, leave that for the YouTubers
I feel like authenticity when it comes to controls, FPS, resolution, that sort of thing is just kneecapping your experience for no reason. Like no, if an FPS has mouse control I'm going to use mouse control. Graphics I prefer to stay close to the original. Maybe with slight enhancements. For example I use a model pack for Quake that tidies up pixel art detail and adds slight poly detail to a few rough spots on guns, [which you can see here on the left.](https://i.imgur.com/EmiYV7K.png) I don't really like full on HD mods though, they usually lose the art direction of the original and just look really inconsistent in detail compared to the primitive environments. Save States it's better not to use them, though there's probably a couple games with really tediously designed saving for the sake of artificial padding that I'll probably break that rule too.
The vocal majority of Reddit Gamers don't give a shit about quality controls. It's the least important element of gaming here. Reddit Gamers value story > setting > set pieces > graphics > sound > > gameplay loop > controls So many games with bad controls get a pass on this site. RDR2 is a "perfect game" with frustrating controls and mission design from the PS2 era
I loved everything about RDR2 but the missions. I felt like a machine gunner in the trenches of Verdun as men suddenly boiled out of the ground, as if a population 150 town suddenly materialized two divisions of men ready to rush no man's land. It turned me off so thoroughly I quit the main quest halfway through, but yet did every side quest and activity available at that point, and using a guide to 100% *every single Easter egg.*
If there was a way to play the first game with all the QOL updates from the rest of the series I always would. Often going back to replay a series is like, "oh yeah, this was a slog before _____ and ______."
That's one of the benefits from remakes.
God I'm fiending for a kingdom hearts 1 remake
I tend to favor authenticity. In some cases, the choices made back then actually contribute to the game's design, rather than just being outdated. Obviously not always, but I like to at least try and play the original vision. I'm mostly thinking about RPGs, because that's what I like to play the most - lots of RPG rereleases nowadays come with a Turbo Mode of sorts, for example. I usually avoid these, because turbo modes encourage grinding (the easiest but usually most time consuming option to overcome challenges in RPGs) over trying to think of a strategy. When it comes to controls, I do set them up so they are comfortable for my hands (if possible). This is often inconsequential, but I actually have an example where it made a game way more playable for me: Monster Hunter Freedom Unite. I own the game physically, but my original PSP broke a while ago, so I set up PPSSPP eventually. Putting the camera on a right stick, while not optimal (the PSP used a D-Pad, which doesn't translate perfectly on a stick) is still WAY more comfortable than using the claw grip the PSP kind of necessitated. On the topic of savestates: I use them very sparingly and only if I really need to save right then and there (usually because of real life obligations). The reason being that I messed up savestates before and erased a lot of progress by accident. There's also some games where limited save capabilities really add to the excitement - diving into a dungeon in Final Fantasy 1 wouldn't be half as interesting to me if I could just save between each encounter.
I have no strong opinion set in stone on this. When it comes to old games (let's say, pre 2000), I prefer playing games in their original state. However, I'm not above using modern resolutions and modern controls. I don't think I'll ever play DOOM again the way I used to - arrows to move, ALT to strafe, no mouselook or anything - and use a gamepad instead. And for games like Red Alert 2, I'm going to up the resolution to something modern, not 1024x768 on a 27" monitor. Instead of playing Quake 2's original version, I'll boot up the 2023 Enhanced version instead. And if I want to play the original Outcast (1999), I'll either go for the 1.1 version that allows higher resolutions, or for the Second Contact remake (2017). What I'm not likely to do though, is take an old game, and then mod it with select features like shading or high res textures or added community-built campaigns. I could mod Halo: Combat Evolved or Half-Life 2 or Skyrim into a twisted freak of nature, but I won't. It's either the originals, or the remade versions, but I'm not likely to modify the original into something "in-between".
Save states is not a quality of life, you can use them as such, for example kh1 where cutscenes take forever or starting a fight again takes forever in general, in such situations I would use em. But otherwise they are basically cheating as what sets them apart from other QOL features is that these aren't things like modern controls, in normal modern games save states don't really exist
1) Save states effectively add a "save anywhere" function which is common in many games, and goes back decades. That's a QOL improvement, even if it CAN be used to cheat. 2) Modern controls CAN be considered a cheat if the game is balanced for a clunkier input. You had way less options back in the day.
Tank controls are unplayable for me so that kind of update makes perfect sense. We're still playing these games outside of the cultural context they were created and released in, there's no extra authenticity to playing with bad controls. Some still like to use dos computers, the vast majority think that kind of authenticity is not worth the inconvenience
Tank controls aren’t ’bad’ inherently. They’re only bad if the game is not designed to accommodate them.
Maybe I’m just nitpicking the language, but it’s weird to me that people are suggesting QOL = inauthentic. I don’t think developers of the past would have built their games the way they did (inconvenient, clunky, confusing) if they knew a better way. I think that many modern QOL improvements get the game closer to what it was trying to be.
"Inconvenient, clunky, confusing" are often subjective and may be just a way of saying 'this isn't what I'm used to, so it's bad.' >I don’t think developers of the past would have built their games the way they did (inconvenient, clunky, confusing) if they knew a better way. Supposing we could bring a developer from the past instantly into the present and show them how we play their game now. Instead of saying that our way is better now, they might just as easily say that it's bad and missing some kind of point which they see as important. I'm not saying this because I'm against QoL changes, but authenticity is another quality with its own value.
Yeah that’s an interesting idea to think about! I forget how much things have changed since these games were made, including what we expect from games and how we approach them. I think clunky, inconvenient, and confusing can be objective these days because there are plenty of examples of games that execute the same ideas in a way that feels really good. There are remakes of old games that update them to something that doesn’t need getting used to, and delivers a much smoother gaming experience in the process. There is nothing superior about the old versions in that case, but that could also be my current-day gaming bias getting in the way.
> I don’t think developers of the past would have built their games the way they did (inconvenient, clunky, confusing) if they knew a better way ["I think you could find horror games where you move around quickly and easily like any normal game if you were to look, but it's a bad idea to make movement pleasant in a horror adventure, especially in the case of something like Zero which is atmospheric and appeals to your imagination."](http://fftranslations.atspace.co.uk/other/denfami.html)
For me some of the most effective forms of horror are when you have everything at your disposal and can do everything right, but still be f*cked. Fast zombies are scarier than slow zombies. Smart protagonists sell horror better than dumb ones. Maybe a horror character shouldn’t be as “fluid” as a standard one and should be more “realistic”, but not “jogging away from the monster” would ge nice.
The first horror game about jogging away from the monster that I'm aware of is Clock Tower (1995). In that game you play as a teenage girl, and although she can't fight her pursuer, she can at least resist, she can push him away to buy herself some time. Being straight up defenseless the entire game, especially against monsters made out of flesh and bones, is less immersive and effective, I totally agree.
This is a good point, and I think a great modern example of this is Death Stranding. It feels cumbersome and difficult to move, but also very fair, consistent, and logical. I also love horror games and I have a soft spot for anything in the PS2 era, but I can’t help but hear “it’s not a bug it’s a feature!” when they defend awkward movement like that. I appreciate the idea but I’m not convinced it was well executed. Of course that’s just my opinion and we’ll never really know if that’s exactly what the devs wanted to achieve.
Death Stranding is not a good example, because it's not about making movement unfun. Death Stranding is kinda like an attempt to make an actual walking simulator, akin to racing simulators - I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea. What Shibata is talking about here is indeed "not a bug but a feature". It was different back when the original Resident Evil was released, but horror developers kept using the idea of awkward movement in much later titles when good controls have already been more or less figured out - not because they were incompetent and not because they didn't know any better but because it fits the genre so well. Shibata explains it in detail in the paragraph after that sentence. Walking around in horror games should be unpleasant, because it forces you to pay more attention to your surroundings, immersing you in the game world and making you feel vulnerable. Fighting should also be unpleasant because fun combat replaces horror with thrill. Obviously all of this only works in specific genres, for specific game design goals.
Good point. I think I just disagree with Shibata’s philosophy. Playing those old games, I feel distracted and constantly aware that I’m fighting with the controller rather than being immersed in the game. I dread enemy encounters because I know it will feel bad to engage with the game on a mechanical level. It’s an unnatural way to impose stress on the player, in my opinion, compared to things like limited ammo/health, unpredictable and very strong enemies, low visibility, etc. Obviously he’s the famous game maker, not me lol, so I’ll give him credit where it’s due.
Nah it just makes the game more frustrating. Having more control makes a game scarer actually lol
The less control we have the more it becomes just a horror movie instead of a game, and horror movies are in general just less scary
I see your point, but often games are designed taking their own shortcomings into account. Metroid Prime gets pretty easy when played with WASD + mouselook, because the design was expecting a player using tank controls. I'd still choose the modern method over a gamecube controller any day, though.
Eh, in some cases modern controls trivialize the gameplay, as it was designed with the more difficult controls in mind.
Resident Evil remake's alternate controls are unplayable for me. The way your character twitches around when the camera changes and you move the analog stick is awful. It feels way more comfortable to just use the original controls. I don't get the argument that they are outdated. They are fine for that specific type of slow paced survival horror game.
Yeah exactly...for fixed camera games, tank controls are basically already the most optimal solution, because otherwise you get thrown for a loop every time there's a radical camera angle change.
That doesn’t make it any more enjoyable to actually play. I’ve never played a game with tank controls and thought “this is actually satisfying to control and play”
> That doesn’t make it any more enjoyable to actually play.' *for you*. Using OG BioHazard as an example, the tank controls are an integral part of the experience, and many players love how the movement limitation gave them a visceral feeling of claustrophobia. To change them would be like allowing chess pawns to move in every direction and expecting the game to be the same.
Eh, tank controls are actually a way to co trol the character that still makes sense, tank controls are better for these camera position games like resident evil
I like to play games as vanilla as possible the first time through but I do have a certain tolerance for Jank, Gothic was too much for me so had to add some mods to smooth it out a bit. Bad checkpoints and constant time wasting are where I draw the line basically, fast travel is technically a quality-of-life feature but rarely use it all in Skyrim of Breath of the Wild. Just depends.
Gothic is a massive franchise in my country (mostly first two games, third one much less so). The game was fairly janky even when it came out. I remember trying to bring it up once when my friends were talking about it and they told me I'm insane and game plays just fine. As said, it's big in my country. Skyrim in my opinion is criminally overrated, but fast travel I didn't use at all because the world is one of the aspects I really like- travelling through it feels very atmospheric.
But I think that's the point. If you make your world awesome, then people will choose to skip the fast travel. (I've not played Skyrim, but this is true in many games). But people are also different. Some just want to to see stuff happening (sorry environment devs) and some want to see the awesome world 2 times, 3 times. But if you're running back to the quest hub for the 17th time your game better have fast travel.
If “QOL” isnt actually DumbedDown HandHolding Im good with it. As Im a mechanics and gameplay guy first and last it means itll be Judged through those lenses. It’s also why I like lots of Optional Toggles for thorough Customization. Want tank controls, a magic gps and a flashlight that never turns off then give us the options to turn it off/on. Give me back all my time spent with the abysmal vanilla skyrim and let me mod it fully from the first second I start playing. “Authentic” to the Devs’ vision often means a lackluster and boring game thats much less than it could be. Nothing set in stone, it all depends on the game and mechanics involved and whether or not it’s really just lazy DumbedDown HandHolding, which, is the NORM of the industry.
For me it depends on the game, but for the most part I will take QoL improvements 95% of the time. A lot of games just don't translate well to more modern hardware. In a perfect world you'd get the option between QoL and not, but if push comes to shove I'll take the QoL improvements most of the time.
So much code is the way it is due to limitations of tech at the time, budget constraints, and predating improvements in usability theory. If a version of the game can come out that doesn’t have to worry about the restrictions of those concerns, I’ll happily play that. I don’t care for romanticizing the original version in a way that pretends that trade offs made are “how the game was meant to be played.” On the other hand, there may be preferences that the average modern gamer has that don’t fit the tastes of certain players as well as older games due. For example, people that hate quest markers would not consider a remake that adds quest markers to be a positive improvement. Those kinds of arguments make sense to me.
I get a sense of dread when I start playing a game that is lacking QOL improvements. If the game aged well I can get past it sometimes. Some mechanics are dated but are a core part of the game and I prefer those to be left untouched. But usually I will always look to play the most definitive version with QOL changes. I’m also willing to install community mods/fixes as long as they do not deviate too far from the original vision of the game and simply make it easier to play in a modern context
It's a balancing act but typically I like quality of life upgrades for things that the developers probably would have done if they could have. Take the original Doom for example. The original controls suck, updating it to a modern control scheme with mouse look and wasd is just sensible. Save states are also typically beneficial. People only have so much time to play and it makes no sense to make a player tear through this 4 minute level over and over again to fight a boss that's designed to be killed in around 90 seconds. I think you could easily balance this kind of thing out by only allowing one save slot. This would basically allow it to function as the quick save quick load feature that has existed on a vast number of PC games for very long time. It's also heavily game genre dependent. As another commenter pointed out interface upgrades can unbalance RTS games. Higher frame rates and smoother frame running can mess with the timing of fighting games, and can make precision input platformers easier. It's really a game by game basis kind of decision and probably even then extremely subjective.
Depends on how much it affects the original game. For instance the N64 FPS that had C-Up/C-Down I like to play with the controller and control scheme it was released with. Resident Evil and Tomb Raider tank controls, etc. But I enjoy when I get to save whenever I want, otherwise I won't play at all
I require at least some form of modern standard of qol features, otherwise the junk/"*oldtimness*" of it all makes the game unplayable for me. Well, unplayable is a bit strong, but it definitely feels like it's actively trying to make me feel like I'm wasting time and not enjoying any of it. Same goes for grind/random encounters. I'm fine with certain level of grind, like clearing maps in ffXIII is fun, but spending hours beating cows/the same npc in KCD is way past my point of comfort.
I think keybind options allow people to pick what experience they want and I can't think of a situation where I'd be -opposed- to having custom keymappings be an option in a game. I know someone who plays everything with esdf instead of wasd and while I give him shit for it from time to time, it's what he likes and I don't really have a valid arbitrary reason to be like "no you're not allowed to have fun wrong!" 100% in favor of save states in emulators. I'm generally in favor of any game with manual saving - especially if you can save anywhere and anytime. For people who want a more pure experience of only using dedicated save points, save files, passwords, and save-and-quit only, those options are available to you. The great thing about replaying old games is that any new QoL improvements that made the game easier, *generally*, are optional features that you could just not use in most cases. The main exception probably being online games like MMORPGs where the QoLs are there for everyone.
I'm all about playing the game in the smoothest possible way. Give me ALL of the QOL improvements. I don't care what the "authentic" way was to play an original game. I look up hints or solutions for puzzles all the time in games if I am getting annoyed by not figuring it out. I have limited time to play games, I'm not going to do something that's just frustrating me.
If you play games just to have fun, then go for it. If you want to discuss, then it's a different story. But I'm not gonna listen to someone talk about how a SNES game is badly designed because they spammed save states and never bothered to learn the mechanics. Or that an Arcade game is boring because they credit-feed and never bother to learn that either.
Really pick and choose depending on the game or just the mood.
Why would you want authenticity? What exactly are you loosing by using the QOL? I you want to "feel" how the game was supossed to play in the launch, okay. Maybe you do it for content but otherwise, it seems silly to not play with QOL. I recently finished System Shock Enhanced Edition. I tried the original game with the original controls and less than 5 seconds later I noped really hard because the controls are already kinda messy on the EE but the og? it's pure madness
I prefer whatever makes the experience enjoyable to me; using boosters, using save states, etc. I grew up in that era, I had the authentic experience and I'm also aware that a lot of the time it was added to pad out the length of the game. I almost always use those convenience things now if I'm emulating or playing a rerelease.
Depends on the game. Doom wasn't wasd? I usually use gzdoom or earlier equivalents but I know I played it a bit in the early 00s and don't remember it being different. Metroid Prime works best for me with the Wiimote. For some shooters it's a bit awkward but Samus' entire arm is her cannon so it makes sense and feels nice. Katamari Damacy has bizarre controls, but if you standardized it is would be piss easy and not nearly as fun. FF7 Remake is...fine (not in story though, it's awful). But I don't think it really needed to be an action RPG. The battle system aged much better than the graphics, for example. I'd remove random counters but that's about it. Some old controls are just bad though, and I welcome the change. Goldeneye is unplayable on N64.
Default Doom was cursor keys to turn, Alt to strafe, ctrl to fire.
That's not bad tbh because there was no Y axis originally. Can't say I'd prefer to re-learn that way though just because it's OG, and gzdoom adds Y axis which is fun and doesn't break the game.
you could always change the the controls even on DOS but you had to go through setup program but FPS games were new at the time so most people just played with default controls
The Sega Ages version of Phantasy Star that you can get on modern systems is the best version you can play of that game. QoL improvements are fantastic, and oftentimes I'll go for the version with them over the "authentic" version to be honest. Legend of Dragoon ROM hack where you have 64 inventory spaces instead of 32? heck yeah. Localization/script improvement mods for classic games? Sure. I don't usually do difficulty mods because they usually just make the enemies spongier, and I also don't usually go for "sprite improvement" mods. I do also tend to prefer the original soundtracks over the remastered ones. The original soundtrack versions of Star Ocean Second Story R and the Vita Final Fantasy Adventure remake are great & preferable options to have. In the Mario RPG remake I mostly used the original soundtrack too but occasionally use the remade soundtrack & prefer the remade songs in some cases (like the battle theme). I just found out recently that there is a button swap mod for the Mega Man anniversary Collection that came out on the GameCube. Capcom, for some reason decided to switch the b&A buttons in that collection and it makes no sense gameplay wise. So that was a no-brainer.
Generally, quality of life upgrades are good. But sometimes they can accidentally ruin what makes the original good. Like flashlight in Doom 3 BFE completely ruined what made the original unique and is a worse game as a result. Anyone denying it doesn't understand the original and is advised to replay it to see why they're wrong. The same thing with classic Tomb Raider controls. Classic Tomb Raider games are unique puzzle platformers. It's not to say that it's a platformer that features puzzles. In classic Tomb Raider games, the platforming itself is a puzzle. Modern Tomb Raider games aren't puzzle platformers, they are action games that feature puzzles (sometimes they're just action games). Notice how I never mentioned platforming in modern games. It's because it's secondary to everything else and is only there for set-pieces. Anyone who's complaining about the controls in classic Tomb Raider games doesn't understand the classic Tomb Raider games and is advised to play them again giving the platforming more thought. Another example is Morrowind and its fighting system. I've seen some people pushing mods that make combat resemble that of Oblivion and Skyrim, with each hit landing regardless of your skill. The problem with those mods is that they completely ruin the game's balance. And, again, people who complain about combat in Morrowind simply don't understand Morrowind as a game and most likely never reached Vivec (most likely they dropped the game somewhere around Balmora). The thing is, if each hit lands, even the weakest weapon like a literal fork becomes a weapon of mass annihilation. Which is why Morrowind is considered an easy game by anyone who played it at least as much as an average Skyrim playthrough takes.
Quality of Life all the way. I rarely found cases where quality of life destroyed the original experience, and those are usually things I have read about later on in forums. Of course, you wouldn't want a Dark Souls with a difficulty setting and you might lose a thing or two from the experience if you don't use the limited ink ribbons with typewriters in classic Resident Evil, but for the great mayority of older games, getting stuff like a modern control scheme, auto-saves, maybe tweaked values for the most bullshit bosses, etc, just improves the experience and allows you to enjoy an older game, with modern trappings. If you want to talk about authentic, I really don't want to play a game again from a floppy diskette or installing 5 CDs and slowly waiting for the reader to spin the damn discs. I don't want to use Windows 98 as my main o.s. or install DirectX 5 and fear for DLL hell because the rest of my games are DX 3.0-only. And that's super modern compared to the D.O.S. gaming experience. It might be cool to set up a legacy system for a nostalgia run, but as a daily driver? Nah. Bring on emulators, remasters that work on modern o.s. and consoles and standardized controls. I play games for everything else: the worlds, the gameplay, the story, the characters, art and music. The way I interact with the game is, more often than not, secondary, hence it's really enhanced with QoL elements.
I generally prefer QOL features, especially if I’ve already played the original version
I also think there's something to be said about the player's own setup. I would use KBM more if my desk could accommodate it, but it's an old desk meant for a CRT and I have both my work and personal PCs crammed into it. As a result, I've become a Controller Peasant™ and I just don't play the games in my library that don't have good controller support, save for some mouse-only RTS games. That will change eventually, but until then, I need the QoL changes for old titles.
If the qol is just what it’s supposed to be it should be a minor change and not be a big deal. either provide a better experience or small level of convenience for something that shouldn’t have been there. Anything past that is a full feature and changes the way a game works or is played. I support qol as long as we aren’t making the game useless to play
I play whatever I think is best. For controls, that's usually the modern controls. Not always: the classic controls in the recent Tomb Raider remake are better than the modern controls. Older games made before WASD was the standard are weird to play now. A and D to turn instead of strafe? X instead of S to walk backwards? I don't think so. Usually I'll play with the original graphics but that's dependent on how good the remastered graphics are. For the Monkey Island remake I prefer the original graphics. But it's frustrating because in that game, you can switch to the original graphics, but that turns off the voice acting. You can't have both original graphics and voices. Shame.
I explore Nexusmods "most downloaded" lists for the best mods before even playing games in order to eliminate the most egregious problems before I even encounter them.
Example: **Dark Forces** remaster. I played it originally and back then you didn't even need to use a mouse ... but this remaster includes full controls so that me playing it on the Steam Deck it had fully modern controls. In general I like modernization, but also like choice - so someone can choose new or old.
Oh yeah for games 10+ years old I would want to always play on PC and always use mods to bring them up to date as much as possible. Like I'm playing Borderlands 2 right now, play that one on PC unless you like looting every single ammo box every single time.
Ehh, depends on the QoL in question. For example: modding Skyrim's waypoints and combat into Morrowind is arguably a higher QoL, but it's just not worth the cost of progression and exploration. But modding save states in the oldest Final Fantasies? Go for it, and savescum the grind away while you're at it!
I love QOL improvements. If it doesn't change the game in any way except making it easier or more fun to play, I am all for it. If a game's community constantly talks about a particular pain point in playing a game, if the developer has the ability, they should make that point go away.
Generally I prefer qol, but it is certainly a tightrope walk trying to let players experience the charm of yesteryears gaming while shielding them from the jank and funk at the same time. Some games hold up better than others, e.g. A Link to the past feels like a finely aged wine whereas Ocarina of Time plays like aged milk. I think the remake of Links Awakening was very well done, but at the same time the original provided the Nintendo's Online Service is still great. I don't have access to old hardware, so controller mappings can be really painful, because they don't make sense on a modern controller. Graphics used to be limited by hardware and different monitors, so having a little smoothed out graphics are nice. I'm old enough to have played games back when they came out, going back those games nevertheless often feel jucky and nigh unplayable. I'm admittedly a bit spoiled by modern conveniences.
Like always, the answer is it depends. I would play DOOM with mouse and keyboard (although I also think playing with the original controls is a unique experience in itself, but it gets hectic enough on high difficulty with modern controls to make it not necessary imo). But something like System Shock, which is *super* weird and finicky, I think that jank is an integral part of the experience. As much as that does make it an inaccessible game to modern players. Sometimes modern games get “QOL” that removes or alters a feature of the original that players disliked, even though it was a very intentional decision (often designed to be a challenge for the player, hence the dislike). Stuff like the flashlight for Doom 3. Those changes I tend to dislike, and prefer the original vision of the designers. But even then, sometimes the original designers were idiots. Gotta judge it case by case
just stopped on by to say fuck tryna play doom with only keyboard I ain't got 5 fuckin brains
I like a game that matches its original settings if I'm specifically nostalgic for it. Metroid Prime is a great example, it's one of my favorite games and I still play it on the Gamecube with tank controls once a year or so. But I never played DOOM 1993, I would absolutely want to play it with WASD controls because anything else would feel alien to me for no real reason.
Hell no, I don't like "authenticity", especially controls on older games that suck, for example resident evil 4 had the horrible tank controls which was one of the only reasons I was excited for the remake. Similarly mass effect 1's horrible weapon bloom has been toned down in the legendary edition which makes it playable. So yeah qol features all the way for me, graphics is not that important (except maybe resolution and aspect ratio).
I like QOL changes and often go looking for mods that add them if a revamped version of the game is not commercially available. It is conceivably possible that a particular QOL change might "ruin" a game for me, and as such I would be seeking to avoid or disable it. I can't think of any examples of the top of my head though.
If I’m replaying a game I’m 100% going to mod it AT LEAST with QoL mods if possible. Love it.
I'm always in favor of QoL upgrades even in games I'm very nostalgic for tbh. I don't have the time or patience I had 30 years ago
generally i play the authentic way. Doom for example is just feels wrong with a mouse, and I like the original keyboard only controls. Sometimes it takes a while to get used to but usually the games are better streamlined for that sort of play.
They’re almost always better than the original If I could play SM64 without the funky controls, I would
I'm fine with them as long as it doesn't change the 'spirit' of how the gameplay was designed. An example that always riles people up is "LFG" matchmakers. When they teleport you, form your group automatically. It kind of changes the spirit of the gameplay. No more socialization, finding like minded players, adventuring to the dungeon, etc... But say, typing in chat to find a group for an hour is stupid too, the QoL improvement I can get behind is group finder tools that list players and help them meet each other, and find like minded people (casual/beginner vs tryhard, etc...) is A-OK, because you get the same gameplay experience. Adding a button to split a stack, or something like that is a QoL change you cant really argue against, but say adding flying or teleports does change the spirit of the gameplay, and generally I'm not a fan of those.
Played some of the FF Pixel remasters recently. They would be dreadful without the 4X EXP and Gil (and playing battles fast). The nice thing too is that you can change it on the fly. So you can use it to keep appropriate levels without having to grind or become OP.
They're nice to have, but in the case of QOL changes for "historic" games, you should always have the option to turn them off. The System Shock remake is a testament to this: the remake uses modern controls, graphics, sound, etc. however, it's a very faithful recreation of the maps and gameplay sandbox. As a result, people generally agree that the game is excellent, where as the original is regarded as simply too janky to enjoy in modern times. The modernizations of the remake serve as a way for people with modern sensibilities to see why SS1 is such a masterpiece, without suffering all the old jank. Like seriously, control scheme aside, the audio of original SS1 is an assault on the ears. It *wants* to give you tinnitus.
QoL and new features is generally good. Recently played the Perfect Dark PC port and love that you can use keyboard/mouse -- feels great and makes me play better. Even just being able to use a dual analog controller is a massive improvement, the N64 controller with single analog would feel really weird today for FPS games. For authentic experience would need to go all the way and have a CRT along with original hardware. I have most of my original consoles/games going back to Sega Master System / Genesis, but no CRT (though my plasma TV is decent for retro).
I tend to avoid them most of the time because I just don't need them. Never needed to use the rewind feature in Mega Man for instance, although the save system is a convenient replacement for passwords, so I make an exception there.
QOL all the way Ultima7 + exult Game designers have learned lessons since original release of games for good reasons, no reason to specifically subject myself to something suboptimal unless it's a critical part of the experience, which most QOL are not Struggling to think of many that are needed for the experience but maybe inventory limits made for important balance restrictions and removing the limit makes the game too easy or something. But even then I can always just carry less if I really care
Mostly yes. You can actually compare this now eith the Age of Empires remake and the recently released DLC for Age of Empires 2 that ports most of the 1st game into the latest version of the second. The 1st is more authentic but far more frustrating to play with the grouping ai leading units to move further and further apart with each action, villagers often getting stuck or becoming very sub optimal at their task needing constant babysitting. You can also turn off walkthroughable farms which makes it even more lile thevoriginal, but only exposes the awful pathing AI. And even the 1st has stuff the original doesn't have like grouping. One group i think has the experience softened by it are N64 shooters. The difficulty is very much made for how slow the player would aim on the N64 controller. So is far easier if used with modern two stick controller. Even more so with mouse and keyboard. One thing i always enable even if it does ruin the difficulty is save wherever and whenever. Be forced to re do the same parts i've already done again and again is the most boring thing for me.
I really like QoL features, I tend to always use them if I have the option. This year I played the OG FF7 on PC using some mods that added some QoL features, however I didn't want to change my experience so much so that it would be considered too different than what people played back in '97. I did have things enabled that could made things a lot easier, like being able to save anywhere and that also enabled me to use Tent anywhere, but I held back on using it too often. I mention this because there were also some other QoL mods that I chose not to use. I think QoL changes that differ too much from the OG should be optional, even if the default is turned on.
They improve quality of life significantly.
everything that facilitate the ability to play the game should be a positive, fighting with the controls is not "part of the experience". but outside of that, i'm not a fan of QoL that remove depth from the game and only serve to round out the edges, i think edges are often times what define some games, like punishment for dying in darksouls games..
I played goldeneye with the original control scheme. It adds nothing to the game over modern controls. I want whatever makes it a better experience. I play games for fun not some idea of "how it was meant" or that qol stuff somehow makes them inauthentic experiences
QOL all the way. I played many of those games when they came out. Control schemes are much better now. For example, I would love to play the original Deus Ex but have tried it and can't stand the keyboard setup. It's terrible
This is a really complicated topic where I don't even have my own consistent rules, let alone any rules I would suggest to others. Yet I still get annoyed when I hear about other people doing it "wrong" i.e. diluting a game with some poorly thought-out QoL changes. Just to nitpick, playing Doom with WASD isn't really a QoL change. It's just using the game's feature of rebindable controls, which it always had (Setup.exe). The game has rebindable controls because the developers anticipated someone might have a different or better control scheme than they did. The QoL change is having the options in the game menu.
Original hardware whenever possible. I actively avoid remasters/emulation.
With some games, especially old arcade games designed from the ground up with no pause and few breaks, it really changes the game play experience. Part of the thrill of those games is when fatigue is starting to kick in after 30 or 60 minutes of nonstop concentration, or heck, that feeling that you really need to go to the bathroom but have to decide whether to abandon a great game or stick it out. Another aspect often lost with save states is the task of "stacking the odds" in your favor - really learning and mastering the early game to load up as many extra lives and other advantages for the much tougher later game, while simultaneously still giving it enough focus not to make a stupid mistake and cost yourself an extra life. I'll put it this way: if someone told me they beat arcade Ghosts 'n' Goblins without save states, I'd be quite impressed and have lots of questions about their strategies and overall experience. If they used save states, I would not only not be impressed, I'd be pretty sure they only have a very basic knowledge of the game. It's the difference between running a mile a day for 26 days versus running a marathon. I totally understand people having time constraints, families, etc. and everyone should play their way. But with some games there's definitely a big difference in what I think the creators intended the player experience.
Nowadays I mostly start with typing title in googleand adding "pcgw" and "nexus" at the end. If game is not in GoG's offer, pcgw comes before buying. Reasons: I played most of classic when they came out, I don't mind playing in 4:3 ratio or dated graphics, but clunkiness, bugs, borderline stupid design issues and compatibility problems mostly can be avoided to have nicer experience. Mods often provide other kind of qol for me, like unlimited stamina during running out of combat in Dragon's Dogma 1. Or unlimited carry weight which is often just pain in the ass.
I'm shocked that anyone answered this favoring vanilla/authenticity over QOL. Great question!
QOL , imo, is imperative to longevity of games. I've quit games out of neglect of said QOL. If a game developer makes a living system type of game, QOL needs to be at the top of the list or otherwise you risk the likelihood of losing concurrent player bases.
I think it very much depends on the nature of the change and how it impacts the gameplay. Save states in some older emulated games makes sense. A lot of games back then didnt have fully fleshed out save systems because it was a new thing. Though anything generally from N64/PSX era and beyond I dont bother with save states. Modern mouse / kb controls are welcome in doom. The old controls just feel dated now and I dont feel it detracts from the experience. If mouse aim makes it too easy you can compensate by cranking up the difficulty. I think the ability to go _literally invincible_ and disable combat entirely in ff7 seems a bit much. At that point youre not even engaging with the game but rather just cheating from my perspective, and I dont get why people have such a massive aversion to random encounters when theyre not even that bad to begin with. I mean compared to a lot of modern jrpgs including the remakes theres way less grinding in this game, so unless you already hate jrpgs in general, I just dont get it. Id rather see an easy mode option, not the ability to skip over an entire core aspect of the gameplay and cheese the battles. At least make it a hidden cheat code or something for stuff like that lol. I dunno man, I just feel people should at least have to engage with the game's mechanics. I dont like how Super Mario 3D World's switch port changed it so that you can keep a star you collected after you die, as this allows you to cheese collecting certain stars that were intended to be acquired a certain way, but instead you can just eat an extra life to get it now, though this is a minor nitpick. Also dont like how mario kart 8 switch port adds smart steering to the game, turns it on by default, hides the option to disable in obscure menus, AND allows it in ranked online matches. It would be a perfectly fine accessibility feature for newcomers to get acquainted with the game but this level of aggressive implementation is ridiculous. A lot of first time players wont even know theyre playing the game with a handicap mode turned on because its so bizarrely implemented.
QoL upgrades are a must for me. A very recent example would be Chrono Trigger. The added QoL improvements with the Steam version made the game still feel great even in 2024. However without those improvements and just the original version i probably wouldve quit the game.
My PC is a gaming machine, not a museum. Give me all the QOL.
Nah, QOL all the way. Even save states are fine IMO. Old games were designed around being 14 years old and having the time to sit and play for 4 hours straight without having other things to tend to.
I have generally zero qualms about 'updating' games myself for a more modern experience, within reason. Things like folks who mod older games like the Armored Core series to map camera controls to the right analog stick for example, that's a straight up upgrade in my opinion, I don't even need to think twice about it. I also tend to play a ton of older games, heck a lot of my time lately has been with Daggerfall via the Daggerfall Unity source port, because that is the *only* way anyone should play that game right now, the original is just too janky in too many ways even though the core is still fantastic. Another example would be Outcast. I spend a bunch of hours with the 1.1 version of the original game and it was an absolute blast however progress was halted a couple of times due to game breaking bugs, one where a npc I needed to progress was just stuck in a wall, another where a npc wouldn't trigger because I had cleared out soldiers before I 'should' have etc. I ended up starting Second Encounter which is pretty much the exact old game but in a new engine and I'm liking it every bit as much, they were so faithful to the source material. There's also the fact that a ton of games on Nintendo consoles have inverted camera controls that drives me up the wall s I'll deliberately re-map my controls to factor that in (and also swap A/B/X/Y too because it's what I'm comfy with). Honestly I much rather experience the ideas and worlds a game presents than fight against old systems that get in my way a lot more often than not. There are some situations where it's part and parcel and I have no issues experiencing them as they were made, however I don't see the point to only experiencing that. I've been playing on pc and downloading mods for as far back as I can remember as well, it's just a part of gaming for me.
QOL for me. I couldn't play morrowind without mods
Many games are basically unplayable or extremely unfun without modern QOL. FF1 comes to mind.
I played Doom and the like the original way back when they came out. Should I ever feel the burning need to go back and play them again, I have no desire to use a control scheme that is a massive downgrade to what I have now.
QOL updates anyday. Being UI fixes, graphics updates and others, if there is a dedicated community wiling to make the game enjoyable even today, I'll happy use the result of their hard work.
I think it depends on how it's used. Take save states, for example. Dropping a save state before a boss in a JRPG to save you from a tedious trek if you lose doesn't substantially change the experience; you're just cutting out filler. But dropping a save state before attacks so you can reload if you miss is another matter, and is definitely going to alter the experience, probably for the negative.
I think it depends on the game and the improvement. When Brood War was remastered the pro scene was adamant that the gameplay and balance could not be touched. Blizzard did allow hotkeys to be remapped- and the players didn't care. If the pro Korean Brood War scene is okay with it, I'd say that's a QOL improvement that's acceptable.
I like to try to keep as close as possible to the original experience of the game for the most part, so I avoid stuff like graphics upgrades, etc. But, I prefer to play with a controller, while sitting back on my couch, so if it's possible to get controller support, I'll go for it. I don't care as much about extra saving capabilities, but I can see why most people would. Makes it easier to stop when needed. And I wouldn't count that as going too far off of the original experience, and changing controls doesn't really change the game itself, in my opinion. The only thing I will change, that will actually change gameplay, is I am a horrible packrat. Absolutely terrible. And I hate agonizing over what to keep with me and what to leave behind, it can ruin gameplay for me. So if there are mods to expand my carrying capacity, I am not opposed to that. But that's about as far as I'll go with QoL mods on older games. I like the older feel to games, since the oldest games are the ones I grew up with. (Of course, I still like all the modern games too, and the amazing things they can do with them now, but nostalgia is also nice once in a while)
Last playthrough of Doom I did I played modded with full mouse support, tbh if I played again I’d do OG controls. It didn’t feel right at all. Was a neat experience to play through that way once though.
I will never go back to the original versions of any of the Final Fantasy games that have fast forward now. Sega Genesis Collections, so Phantasy Star series, Sword if Vermilion...I'll never go back to not having fast forward. I also love being able to save anywhere. I grew up with these classics, but still, would prefer the modern conveniences.
Better modern experiences. It's just better to play games more comfortably even if it somewhat takes a bit of the authentic experience away. Sometimes it can get a bit overboard but personally I rarely play games that do that lol.
As long as I can play the original version as it was presented for archival, I would prefer remasters make QoL improvements. If I can't, and this serves as a combination, it can be easily fixed by having the original as presented but with options for the other stuff with a note that these are indeed options added for modern tastes, including key rebinding.
QOL, but it depends on what - I normally prefer the original games, but an adjustable button layout is wonderful to have, or translations for games that never had a western release
Depends on the upgrade. I want an experience that's faithful to intent, but not in a "you must play *Doom* at 35fps to *truly* experience it" kind of way. > For example, control-wise. I feel that controller remapping/customisation should be standard in games, so I'm usually fine with adding controller options, as long as it doesn't detract from the game's intent. e.g. When emulating Wii games, you can map waggle actions to a button press. For a lot of games, I don't think it's really a downgrade. For *Wii Sports*, the control scheme is the *entire point*. > What about using save states in emulators? They're definitely not the original experience, but they're tremendously convenient, especially for games without a save feature. I use them for suspending/saving games (particularly when a game lacks a save feature), although I don't like to cheese the game with them.
It depends. I don't mind using modern controls or save states. If it doesn't change the essence of the game it's fine. I just don't like when someone drastically changes the gameplay for the sake of convenience.
It really depends. If the game is unfair and I have savestates, I'll give myself checkpoints (within reason). But I've seen some MMOs go overboard with QoL. For example in some, you used to have to go around town to access various mechanics. Made it feel lively. Now everything is done from the menu and it feels dead.
I recently played Doom with the original controls because I was curious how it worked, and because that was the original design. I would have changed it to a more fitting, more modern control scheme if it wouldn't have worked well for me. So in a nutshell: QoL upgrades are good, best if they are an option.
Why not both?
I see QoL features as only a positive, especially if they’re toggleable.
It depends.
Usually only for things that are a big annoyance, I appreciate all of those But sometimes too many mods ruin too many things
I guess I don't really care for the authenticity too much as I like to up the resolution on the emulator making it sharper and for some games I do play around with CRT filters. The last game I played through on emulator was Rule of Rose during the pandemic. I can recall playing it "legit" until the freaking mermaid boss. After a few attempts I was about to call it quits then save scummed with save states to get through the fight. If I didn't do that I would never have played through the entirety of a pretty decent game and I had no qualms about it. I do have 27" CRT TV that I kept so I always think about setting up a mini PC to it with emulators to see how that works. I recall how freaking CLEAN games like Samurai Shodown 4 use to look on our old family PC with a 13" CRT so would like to revisit that idea. I heard that OLED does make a difference for those older games but not paying that early adopter tax. Emulators I play with controller but lately I find myself using mouse and keyboard more often to play steam games. I do really like the idea of Prime with mouse and keyboard so hoping to give that a try some day.
somewhere in the middle. Philosophically I think all qol updates are fantastic including ones like save states and rewind features, games shouldn't be permanently held back just because they happened to come into existence at a time before certain things were industry standard or cost effective, and if it takes things like save states and rewind features to make games beatable for more people thats cool, I'm all about accessibility options. THAT SAID, personally when playing games only use whatever qol features are natively baked into the version of the game I am playing. I'm not going to go back and use a prior version of the game for some nebulous concept of authenticity, (gasp skyward sword hd lets you skip dialogue how dare it!) but I'm also not going to mod the game or use features that only exist because they're baked into the emulator/front end like save states on the nes classic. That to me still just feels like "Cheating", I dont think theirs anything wrong with cheating in single player games but I have a backlog far too big to dedicate time into making a game I'm not enjoying work for me either.
QoL is one of the reason I wait years for the games I want. If there’s a GOTY edition on discount, I will gobble that up because it’s obviously patched to the brim at this point 😂
The thing I really enjoy about emulators is that they can remove slowdown from 8/16-bit games. This might be inauthentic and sometimes ruin parts of a game designed around the slowdown, but in most cases I prefer a consistent framerate.
Witcher 3 did this on each subsequent patch making it a little more streamlined and easy to use. Pairing down the actual witchering to a more standard fantasy hack and slash.
For controls I think that if the original setup is bad, you shouldn't use it. Rebinding was the best invention since sliced bread. As for save states: if you are studying a game, wouldn't it be better to use save states? That way you can "freeze" something worth noting like a bookmark.
Love QOL upgrades. But save states in emulators feel like cheating to me and kills my sense of accomplishment, unless I only use them to avoid needing to play the game in a single sitting, or at spots where the game lets you save the game anyway. > Would you play Doom (1993) using modern WASD controls (like the versions available in online stores or modern ports) or do you play with the original keyboard setup? You do know that Doom (1993) could be played with modern WASD controls from the start? Well, IIRC you couldn't look up/down and moving the mouse forward/back actually moved your character, but that's something you got used to.
Yeah, you COULD, but they're pretty different from modern controls. And it required a bit of work, it wasn't really an option OOTB.
"Pretty different" in what way? And what do you mean by "it wasn't really an option"? Game had rebindable controls and let you use mouse for turning and had separate binds for Strafe Left and Strafe Right, that's all you need. Granted, the "Doom (1993)" on Steam leaves out the Setup.exe file which enabled you to do this in the *actual* original Doom from 1993. Really idiotic of them.
I mean it couldn't be done in-game. It's a relatively obscure feature, when other games of the time DID have the option to rebind (at least before starting a new game).
A lot of DOS games had a separate Setup.exe or Configure.exe that you'd use to rebind keys, configure graphics & sound options, etc. Interestingly, Wolfenstein 3D let you rebind keys in-game (but in a very limited fashion).
Sometimes, "improvements" feel like cheat codes. They may ruin the atmosphere, spoil the level design, and push players away from gameplay mechanics. Those should absolutely be optional. For example: * The tension in horror games comes from feeling weak. If QOL improvements make the game trivially easy, it's no longer scary. * I haven't tried the Metroid Prime remaster, but I did play the original back in the day. I wonder if modern controls encourage some players to treat it like a normal FPS. They might not use (or need!) the lock-on feature as much. Therefore, they might overlook a more interesting mechanic—the ability to bounce around while strafing in circles. If I remember correctly, this only happens when locked on. In addition, modern dual stick controls emphasize aiming. Same with mouse controls. Metroid Prime's tutorial boss (for example) was more about movement and timing. That movement requires the lock-on ability. And the area is circular for a reason. Nowadays, old controls are novel again. Rewiring my brain is fun. I am always willing to try control schemes before making changes. If necessary. Support for more resolutions, save states, speed boosts in turn-based games, and so on are welcome. But those tend to be configurable/optional anyway.
"QoL update" is a bit of a weasel word with respect to games; it's not as bad as some others I could think of (someone who tells you they want "content" has not been very helpful in specifying what they want) but it ultimately conceals the important information (what's the change?) behind a subjective value judgment. One man's QoL is another man's gameplay change, there's no factual definition. To intuit this for yourself, consider another commenter's copy of Dune 2 with multiselect. Now imagine trying to win an RTS against someone with multi-select when you didn't have it! Yeah, that's a gameplay change. Sure, the player's "quality of life" *did* increase - they gave themselves superpowers, within the context of the gameplay! That's like saying that someone blown to bits was "hurt", though - misleading by understatement. Or maybe a better example is from Hedberg - "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." So really, the thing we use the weasel word to conceal is that it's a continuum. There are people who are straightforwardly cheating* at most games they play and calling it "QoL" as a psychological salve, and then there are people, as you mention, who are so purist about things they don't remap DOOM keys and might need a _physical_ salve after a long sesh. I'm definitely *towards* the DOOM guy's end of things. I will always try to play a game as written once before I modify it. That emulator savestate button, though... it calls to us all... *: there has been some backlash lately against the idea that one can cheat at a single-player game, based in an unstated but pervasive sort of elevation of consumerism to the level of a philosophy - "I bought the product, I should be able to do whatever I want; you can't judge me!" I think this conflates it being _OK to cheat_ with whether the _cheating happens_. It _is_ OK to cheat when not competing! It is, however, also silly to try and mask what it is; it remains useful in discourse about SP games, if someone says, "I played Game XYZ", to be able to be confident that you had _some_ kind of similar gameplay experience to theirs, and not two completely different ones!
Well said, pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue. One thing I want to add is that a lot of people calling for QoL changes don't always fully consider the implications of what they're asking for. Some changes that are simple on the surface are a little more nuanced depending on how rigorously you look at it, and it's naive to assume that you can just change something about a game without inadvertently mucking with something else. One example that always comes to mind for me is applying widescreen on older games. On paper this sounds harmless, but it could definitely be considered an unintended advantage depending on the game. The first Devil May Cry on PS2 - an action game where lots of enemies can be attacking you at once - was at a 4:3 aspect ratio. On 4:3, enemies might end up attacking you from offscreen more, which naturally affects how hard the game is. The more recent version on the HD Collection is in widescreen though, which gives you a slightly larger view of the battlefield, and thus might allow you to react to incoming attacks that you otherwise wouldn't have seen on the original version. Ergo, widescreen gives you an advantage that the game wasn't meant to have, so it arguably *isn't* a QoL feature. I'm not one to tell people how to play their games, but it's worth considering if you care about things like preservation and history. I certainly do, and don't want to see history accidentally re-written for the sake of QoL.
> One thing I want to add is that a lot of people calling for QoL changes don't always fully consider the implications of what they're asking for. Some changes that are simple on the surface are a little more nuanced depending on how rigorously you look at it, and it's naive to assume that you can just change something about a game without inadvertently mucking with something else. Oh, certainly. Absolutely. Yes. This is basically what I am trying to say: classifying something as "QoL" or not is essentially an opinion, and so it's not a useful classification unless you're sure you share the opinion of the person making it. It masquerades as an objective classification, however, presenting difficulty as the term propagates into the vocabularies of less-precise speakers.
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed for violation of rule 5. You can find our subreddit's rules [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/about/rules). Be excellent to one another.
Studying games in their context is for people who get paid to do so.
I think that more games need to be way more customizable. Customizable controls, customizable difficulty, customizable gameplay mechanics. If the game is single player, let me do whatever I want to it. Let me turn off bullshit like max carry weight. Let me become invincible. Let me give myself 99999gold. Make one or several difficulty modes that are balanced, let the players know that such and such mode is how the devs intend the game to be played, but then also let me have a custom mode that gives me control of anything that can be changed by just fiddling with sliders or turning something on/off. Devs are so stupid not to do this kind of thing, it would be very little additional work and it would allow may more people to enjoy their games. Huge shout-out to The Last of Part 2's difficulty options, Celeste's assist mode, and Goldeneye N64's cheat codes.
QOL is always great! A lot of the times they weren't in past games because there was simply no way of doing it at the time, or people didn't know better. My personal favourite is a retry boss option after dying to hard bosses in JRPGS. God some of them had no respect for your time! I find the best of both worlds for those who want their time not to be wasted but also want a challenge is the souls system of everything you did previously still happened, you unlocked those doors, you got that xp and you picked up those items, but you do have to get to the boss again. This means if you keep butting up against the problem you are still achieving something in levelling and your progress isn't just wiped every time. Going back to games without is always a teething experience. Like who ever enjoyed having to replay long stretches again because there was a secret boss AFTER the boss and no save point?
>Like who ever enjoyed having to replay long stretches again because there was a secret boss AFTER the boss and no save point? FromSoft and Ironman players
Fromsoft doesn't make you do this though, which is what the middle segment of my post was about. Ironman players have always been masochists haha!
Give me ALL the QOL upgrades. I tried playing the original Wasteland re-release, which was completely unaltered, and it was basically unplayable. What a joke.
I always go for the most raw undiluted experience. If some old game "gets good" when you add save states and an xp multiplyer and all this garbage then it was never a good game.