NES Metroid, being replaced by Metroid Zero Mission.

NES Metroid is interesting to play through to see where the franchise came from, or for the nostalgia factor, but Metroid Zero Mission is vastly superior in nearly every conceivable way, its not even close. Its not like Silent Hill 2 or Resident Evil 3, where the originals are still better than the remakes overall, everything taken into account (though in that case, SH2 remake is superior to the RE3 remake). Absolutely every element of Zero Mission is an improvement on the original.

Metroid Zero Mission did not make vast sweeping changes to alter the identity of the game, making only minor adjustments to designs that were not thematically important (for example, the physical appearance of Ridley or Kraid being different is not thematically important). There were not big amounts of cut content, with only minor elements being cut like the fake Kraid enemy, which was not thematically important. The music is all familiar with the same composition, but with added flair. Its not different just for the sake of being different. Items and suit upgrades are almost all in the same places as the original NES Metroid, with the addition of new items that were added to the Metroid setting later on such as the Charge Beam and Super Missile. A map was added to the game, and the beam weapons now stack like in Super Metroid, rather than replacing the last beam you had.

All in all, Zero Mission leaves very little reason for the player to play the original game, especially if all the player cares about is the overall story of the Metroid IP. The player won't get more thematically important designs that enhance the story like they would playing the original Silent Hill 2, and they won't get more original game content and story like they would playing RE3 Nemesis. They wouldn't get an improved experience. The choice to play NES Metroid mostly just comes down to nostalgia, historical value, or personal preference. Or if someone only has an NES or device capable of emulating the NES but not the GBA.

I have set up the original Fallout (fully modded and running through Fallout 1n2), but it's pretty hard to get into. Not because of the graphics, which are actually fine, but just because the mechanics are quite intricate and I think my ability to learn new gameplay mechanics is declining as I enter my mid-30s (I've only played Fallout starting with Fallout 3). I'm going to keep trying to get into it!

Do the original version of Doom and Doom 2 count? The relatively recent, re-released duology is objectively superior. Also, OpenRCT2 makes classic RCT and RCT2 feel incomplete at best, and outright horrible to play at worst.

I was going to comment harvest moon after reading the title!

A lot of the older games for me. They're just a lot harder. Like maybe they expect you to be willing to replay an area or a level over and over, getting a little farther each time until you beat it and I just don't have the stamina for that anymore, or the time.

Newer games baby you, they increase the difficultly perfectly along side your ability growth. They might even make a level easier if you've failed twice. Older games don't care if you're having fun as much. There was less competition (fewer game choices) and more of a "gamers like this. If you don't like it, you're not a gamer" attitude, and now games want to attract everyone.

I have become such a baby about games. I want to have fun the whole time! I can't handle failing over and over. I'd rather just read a book.

Having grown up with the PS1, it's been fun revisiting old classics and see what has aged well and what hasn't.

Platformers like Spyro, Crash, Rayman, Abe's Oddysee and Ape Escape have aged like fine wine (although Crash 1 is a lot more janky than the others). But that back into the past, some games also showed no signs of proper playtesting aimed at kids, which means overly difficult levels, annoying completions and such - I remember spending months playing Tarzan, The Emperor's New Groove, Croc 2, Kingley's Adventure and others to 100% them, and some of them I could never finish. I only recently 100% Croc 2 for the first time, for example, and yeah, it wasn't really that good.

Some JRPGs are also as great today as they were the day they were released (Final Fantasy IX, Xenogears, Chrono Cross, Star Ocean and even lesser known ones such as Legend of Legaia, Threads of Fate and Wild Arms), and are arguably better than many of their contemporary competitors. But you sometimes have to stomach one too many random encounter, overly distracting old/early PS1-era graphics, bad translations, or all of the above (I've never been an omega-fan of FFVII, and let me tell you, revisiting it in the pandemic really didn't improve my opinion of that game).

The slow gameplay afforded by the console really allows action-horror games such as Resident Evil, Dino Crisis and Silent Hill to shine, but those that attempted to be more action-oriented, such as Siphon Filter, really show the signs of age. Dino Crisis 2 is the exception here, being very action-heavy, but also distinctly "modern" in many of its design choices.

Stealth games such as Metal Gear Solid and Tenchu are also great, although very limited in scope by today's standards, and the latter's low render distance is something that may annoy players accustomed to modern gaming.

FPS games (Medal of Honour being the biggest title) really have no place in any contemporary gamer's playlist. The same can be said about Race/driving games, unless you like revisiting the catchy tunes of the Gran Turismo 2 soundtrack. For example, I found CTR - Crash Team Racing quite dull and too easy even at max difficulty, but had a blast collecting all achievements in the remake (shame it never got released on PC - I wonder why).

It's probably the same about fighting games: modern entries are much more fluid and dynamic, have better AI and allow for a greater skill ceiling. I say "probably" because I suck at fighting games and I've never played them extensively, aside from a few sparring matches with my brother on Tekken 3.

There are other cases where I found the original game "good enough, but not worth your time over the most recent entries". For example, as a kid I spent countless hours crossing the skies of Ace Combat 2, but all the titles that came after it are just better. If I had to chose only one game for this post, AC2 would probably be it. I loved it and I still do, and its soundtrack is bonkers (seriously, it's really good), but yeah, I'd take 4, Zero and 6, or even Project Wingman, over it any day.

Super Mario Bros 3 after playing the all stars version.

This is pretty obscure, but the Game Boy Advance remake of Mario Bros. (Not Super Mario Bros.) is more fun than the original.

You can run, for one thing, and the controls are more responsive in general.

It’s one of the games on Super Mario Advance, and one of the main reasons I originally wanted a GBA when it came out! I had the original Mario Bros. for the NES and thought it would be fun to have a portable version. I was right.

They did a great job updating the game!

Mount and Blade. Warband is just the better version all around. It works in reverse too cause Warband is better than Bannerlord.

007 games. But the N64 soundtrack was great.

Dark Souls 1. Especially on PC it's almost unplayable due to bad porting and DS3 and Elden Ring have refined the formula so much, it's insane. The remaster is ok though, so I don't know if that counts.

I can't even leave the starting room of the original System Shock. So glad the remake updated the controls.

I did manage to finish System Shock 2, but the "puzzles" are just RNG, so I'm hoping the remaster changes that and maybe even fixes the ending.

I recently finished playing Breath of the Wild and declared it as one of my favorite games ever played. I just started Tears of the Kingdom, and it feels like I may not go back to BOTW, which is crazy that I could consider it one the best experiences ever, and also feel like I may never play it again so shortly after beating it. TotK seems to have everything in BotW and more, with quality of life changes on top of it all.

Starcraft! I really think Starcraft Brood War is a better, more balanced game. The quality of life changes in Starcraft 2 make it so hard to go back to playing Brood War. I don't know if I can adjust back to only selecting a lot amount of units or needing to click on each building to build stuff or not having smart-casting and good pathing.

A lot of strategy games fit this bill to me. Mainly the Paradox ones like Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings. I'd much rather play the most recent version (EU4 and CK3). However, it's interesting that I feel the exact opposite about the Total War and Civilization Series, where I'll prefer the original Rome Total War and Shogun 2 Total War over many of the more-recent games, as well as Civ V over VI and VII (though I haven't played VII yet, to be fair).

The Football Manager series also comes to mind. There's little tweaks and improvements each year (this year being an exception where they are redesigning the entire engine) so I prefer playing the most recent one (even if I still boot up a few of the older games for some nostalgia every now and then).

I grew up playing King's Quest 5, 6, and 7. I was curious about the earlier ones and eventually found them on an abandonware site a while back and they didn't age very well. Turns out 5 was the first one that was all point and click based. Prior to that, they were text based and you needed to know the exact wording or alternatives that they had thought of or you couldn't do anything. I'm sure they were great games for their time but I just couldn't get into them.

More recently, I bought the collection on steam. I'm not sure how well someone who has never played them before would enjoy them, but I found 5 and 6 still stood up, despite being like 30 years old. Though it might also help that I could still remember a bunch of the puzzles, as they could be pretty unforgiving of mistakes. Save often because you could die at any moment, and hope you don't miss picking up an item you'll need later on or you might get eaten by a yeti or something.

For me games from the NES era can tough to enjoy for more than a short period of time. They just tend to feel punitively difficult in a way that is not very fun. I’d much prefer a Mario from SNES onward any day for example.

Call of Duty: World At War Zombies

Every map in WaW zombies has been re-released at least twice. WaW zombies is cool because of how simple and barebones it is, but holy fucking hell that game was not coded for any sort of melee combat. The zombie bodies are so damn large, according to their hit boxes. Try to run past them but brush up against their pinky? Guess you’re done. Also for some reason the co-op splitscreen is not split vertically, and it’s not split horizontally, each of the two players just gets a quarter of the screen in a tiny box. Who knows why.

I love it to death but it’s real hard to go back to it.

The Battlefield franchise. I went back and played 1942, and disregarding the graphics, omg it’s so slow and clunky. It was the shit for the day, but man…compared to 2042 it’s super-dated.

This will be controversial but Hitman blood money.

I have put hundreds of hours into the Hitman trilogy, but no matter what I can't get past the first guard of blood money, that is if I can get past the clunkynes to even get to him in the first place.

I would like to try it as I have heard a lot of good about it, big portion of the fan base think it is the best game ever, but no matter how many time I trow that god dame coin the guard refuses to move and I can't progress and that combined with general age and clunkynes of the controls don't make it an enjoyable experience to try.

In the trilogy and Absultion if I got stuck it was at least enjoyable trying to get around it, this is just frustrating.