u/Any-Local-205

The Witcher 3 is more than 10 years old now, which honestly sounds crazy to me. I started playing it again recently, this time with the Remastered release, and one question came to my mind. Is it already old enough to call it a classic?

For me, yes. The game is unmatched in depth, storytelling, characters and atmosphere. The side quests are better written than the main stories of many RPGs. The world feels alive, the choices matter and almost every region has its own identity. Very few games managed to combine exploration, story and atmosphere on this level.

The Remaster also gives a good reason to return to it. The visuals are improved, the world looks great and the game feels fresh enough without losing what made the original special. I know there are many negative articles and posts about performance issues, stutters and bugs. I have noticed a few minor problems too, but nothing that has ruined the experience for me.

I am already several hours in and I am enjoying the game again. I keep doing contracts, exploring places I forgot about and playing Gwent instead of following the main story. :D The combat shows its age in places, but the rest of the game holds up extremely well.

After reading the criticism online, I expected the Remaster to be in much worse shape. My experience has been positive and the small performance problems seem to be improving with updates.

So... is The Witcher 3 already a classic, or is 2015 still too recent? And for those who tried the Remastered version, how is it running for you?

Blade of Darkness was released in 2001 by Spanish studio Rebel Act Studios. It is a third-person dark fantasy action game built mainly around melee combat.

You can choose between four characters, each with different weapons, strengths and fighting styles, and explore castles, mines, temples and ruins filled with orcs, skeletons, trolls and other creatures.

The graphics obviously look very outdated today, especially the character models and animations. There is, however, a 2021 re-release available on modern systems with HD/upscaled textures, widescreen and 4K support, controller support and several other technical improvements. It is not a remake though, so the original gameplay and content are still there.

What makes the game interesting today is the combat. Stamina matters, and attacks need to be timed well. Blocking and dodging matter as well, and even normal enemies can kill you quickly. You also unlock different combos and attacks as you progress.

And this is where the Dark Souls comparison comes in.

Blade of Darkness came out eight years before Demon’s Souls, but already had stamina-based combat, deliberate attacks, dangerous regular enemies, dark fantasy environments, high difficulty and very little hand-holding.

I've seen the game described many times as an influence on Dark Souls, but I couldn't find any statement from Hidetaka Miyazaki confirming that.

Did anyone here play Blade of Darkness back in 2001, and does it feel Soulslike to you?

For anyone who hasn’t played it, Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines is an action RPG developed by Troika Games and released in 2004. It’s set in the World of Darkness universe and mixes first-person combat, RPG progression, dialogue choices and different vampire clans that can change the way you approach the game. It had a pretty rough launch, but over the years it became one of those classic cult PC games that people just refuse to forget.

I’m currently on my 7th or 8th playthrough of Bloodlines. Every 2–3 years I somehow come back to it and replay the whole thing again. It’s definitely in my top 10 games of all time.

The storytelling, atmosphere and characters are still some of the best I’ve experienced in gaming. Even after so many playthroughs, walking around Santa Monica or Downtown LA still has that strange feeling that very few games manage to recreate.

But this time I started wondering about something.

How well has the actual gameplay aged?

I already love the game, so I’m obviously biased. I can forgive the clunky combat, old animations and some of the more awkward mechanics because I know what I’m getting in return.

But what about someone playing it for the first time in 2026? Especially a gamer who has grown used to modern combat, smoother controls and much more polished gameplay.

Would the story and atmosphere still be enough to pull them through? Or has Bloodlines reached the point where you almost need some nostalgia or patience for old games to really enjoy it?

Curious what people who played it for the first time recently think.

Icy Tower was one of those games that proved a game didn't need to be super deep or have 120+ hours of content to keep you playing. I remember spending hours just trying to master the jumps, keep a combo going and beat my previous high score.

The original came out in 2001 and was incredibly simple, but that was part of the charm. You jumped from platform to platform, climbed as high as possible and one bad move could ruin a great run.

The interesting part is that Icy Tower is coming back on November 10. It's being remade from scratch by the original creators, Johan Peitz and Anders Svensson, which actually gives me some hope that they understand what made the game fun in the first place.

I just hope they keep it simple and don't turn it into another attempt to squeeze money out of people who grew up with the original. If it ends up being a few bucks on Steam, I'll probably give it a try.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/3014860/Icy_Tower/

Anyone else played the hell out of Icy Tower back then? And do you remember your high score?

I always found it a bit strange to call Abe’s Oddysee just a platformer.

You run and jump, yes, but the game has much more than that. You solve puzzles, sneak around enemies, talk to other Mudokons with Gamespeak, save them and even possess enemies to use them.

And the world is just amazing.

RuptureFarms still looks and sounds great today. The backgrounds, machines, strange creatures and sound design make the whole game feel dark, weird and sometimes even disturbing.

The story is also much deeper than in most platformers from that time. Abe is not saving a princess or looking for treasure. He finds out that his own people are going to become the next product of the factory and tries to save them.

The game is hard though. Really hard sometimes. Some parts need perfect timing and you can die many times before you understand what exactly you need to do.

But maybe this is also why people still remember it.

For a game from 1997, Abe’s Oddysee had a lot of ideas, a very unique world and much more depth than most platformers.

Could this be one of the deepest platformers ever made?

There really wasn’t much to Blobby Volley. Two blobs, a volleyball, a net and a handful of controls.

And somehow that was more than enough.

The game was incredibly easy to pick up, but getting the timing right was another story. After a while you started learning the weird physics, trying different angles and figuring out exactly how to drop the ball behind the other player.

Playing against another person on the same keyboard was where it really became dangerous. A quick match could very easily turn into another one... and another one... and suddenly an hour was gone.

It was one of those small freeware PC games that seemed to spread everywhere in the early 2000s. Home PCs, computer clubs, occasionally a school computer too. You didn’t need a powerful machine or a long tutorial. You just opened it and started playing.

And looking at it now, I actually love how unmistakably early-2000s it looks. The tropical beach, the giant shiny blobs, the oversized ball. There is something strangely charming about it.

No progression systems, unlocks or endless menus. Just two blobs trying to smash a volleyball over a net.

Ubisoft has officially announced a full remake of Heroes of Might and Magic III, and I have pretty mixed feelings about it.

On one hand, I would definitely replay the campaigns with the new graphics. I’m curious to see Erathia recreated in full 3D, revisit all those maps again and experience the campaigns in a fresh way. At the same time, what we’ve seen so far feels a bit too AI-designed to me. It looks polished, but also somewhat generic, and that lack of a clear human touch could easily turn longtime fans off.

On the other hand, Heroes 3 has become almost like chess for me at this point. I play on the fastest speeds, on high difficulty, and it’s all about executing the perfect strategy rather than enjoying the graphics or watching every battle animation. I honestly have absolutely no need to see my Archangels hitting Black Dragons in glorious 3D for the hundredth time. I want to make the right move, calculate what I can take with the army I have, finish the battle and move on.

That’s probably why I’m still not convinced Heroes 3 is the game in the series that needed a remake the most. It just works. Even after all these years, the original visuals are extremely readable, the battles are fast, and the whole game has reached that point where changing too much can almost make it worse rather than better.

Personally, I think Heroes 4 or Heroes 5 could benefit much more from a properly done remake. Heroes 4 had some genuinely interesting ideas, like heroes fighting directly on the battlefield, caravans and creatures moving without heroes, but the game never reached the same level of polish and popularity as H3. Heroes 5 is already much closer to the modern 3D style Ubisoft seems to be going for here, and to be honest, from what we’ve seen so far, this H3 remake sometimes looks to me like Heroes 5 with slightly different factions and an H3 skin on top.

That doesn’t necessarily mean it will be bad. It just makes me wonder what the remake is really supposed to improve.

And we already have Olden Era, which is actually quite decent, so the series has already received a pretty solid new entry.

But there is another side to it. If Ubisoft does this properly, it could introduce Heroes 3 to a whole new generation of players who would probably never launch a game from 1999. And if that brings more people into Heroes and turn-based strategy games in general, that would be a huge positive.

So... I’m not against it. I’ll almost certainly play it.

I’m just still not convinced Heroes 3 actually needed a remake.

What about you? For it, against it, or “I’m buying it anyway”?

Hey everyone! Most of you who love the Heroes franchise probably already know about the fheroes2 project and the amazing job the devs have done with it. But I wanted to share this just in case someone here hasn't heard of it yet.

Basically, fheroes2 is an open-source engine that lets you run Heroes 2 smoothly on modern devices with modern features. You can grab the app from the Google Play Store, and from inside the app, you can download the free official demo to start playing immediately.

The only downside is that the demo only comes with one map. However, you can easily fix that directly on your phone by adding more map files to the demo ZIP, making it fully playable if you just want to experience the game. I put together a step-by-step guide for beginners here:https://bestclassicpcgames.com/play-heroes-2-free-android-fheroes2/

So if you're seeing this for the first time and want to try this classic on your phone, it's super easy and completely free. Of course, if you already own the full game, you can just zip up your game files, transfer them to your phone, and let fheroes2 extract them to play the full game and campaigns.

If this helps even one person experience this masterpiece, I'll be happy!

I wasn't even a huge Star Wars fan growing up. Back around the summer of 2005, I randomly picked up Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and it completely changed how I looked at the whole franchise.

For anyone who hasn't played it, the game is set roughly 4,000 years before the original movie trilogy during the Old Republic era. Because it's set so far in the past, BioWare had total narrative freedom. You're dropped into a galaxy where the Jedi Order is at full strength, the Sith are everywhere, and you're not bogged down by movie canon.

The main plot puts you in the boots of a Republic soldier who wakes up on a starship under attack with total amnesia. After discovering you're Force-sensitive, you team up with a young Jedi named Bastila Shan and recruit a ragtag crew to hunt down ancient "Star Maps" across the galaxy. The goal? Find the source of Darth Malak's power, a Sith Lord who is currently systematically wiping out the Republic with a massive, unexplained armada.

Everything in this Star Wars game felt so alive. You hop between planets like Korriban, Manaan, and Kashyyyk, with each world feeling like its own self-contained mystery. Under the hood, it used D&D-style d20 rules with real-time-with-pause combat, but the party members truly carried the experience. Traveling with characters like Jolee Bindo or HK-47 (the sociopathic assassin droid who casually calls every human a "meatbag") gave the world even more color. The light/dark morality system, while simple by today's standards, felt huge back then when your character's face started visibly decaying and party members began questioning your sanity.

And then, the twist lands. I still remember the exact moment when it hit. What makes it so brilliant is that every weird line of dialogue, strange reaction, and subtle hint from earlier in the game instantly clicks into place the second it happens. It was earned, not just tacked on for cheap shock value.

Please keep comments spoiler-tagged, but I’m curious: has any video game twist ever actually topped this one for you? Or is KOTOR still sitting on the throne as the best Star Wars game ever made?

The 1996 game probably has the strongest case. It gave us these huge 3D tombs at a time when that still felt new. Running jumps, ledge grabs, swimming, puzzles, long stretches with almost no enemies around. A lot of the tension came simply from being alone and not knowing what was around the next corner.

And Lara became absolutely massive. She was on magazine covers, appeared in car adverts, made the cover of The Face and even showed up as part of U2's PopMart tour. She became one of the first video game characters who was genuinely famous outside gaming. People knew Lara Croft even if they had never touched Tomb Raider.

The weird thing is, I missed almost all of that. In the 90s I was much more into RPGs and shooters, so Tomb Raider never really clicked with me. The game that finally pulled me in was Tomb Raider 2013. I loved the pacing, the story and how constantly it pushed you forward. That was the first one that made me actually care about Lara and the series.

Only afterwards did I go back and play the older games. And that's probably why I appreciate the original much more now than I would have as a kid. So if you ask me which Tomb Raider was more important, I'd say 1996 without much hesitation. But if you ask me which Lara Croft game is my Lara Croft game, it's 2013.

What about you? Which Tomb Raider do you immediately think of when someone says Lara Croft?

Back in 2000, The Sims was somehow filed under "a game for girls" among everyone I knew. The boys were on Counter-Strike, Diablo II, Red Alert. I still gave it a try, though I never sank serious hours into it.

What I remember is building. I'd spend ages on a house, get the layout right, and then more or less lose interest in the family that moved in. I typed rosebud instead of sending anyone to work. I never got a career past the halfway point, because my Sims were always tired or stuck in the bathroom while the carpool honked outside.

I never actually thought of removing the pool ladder myself, but I see a lot of people did it just to drown their Sims. Did you?

Looking back, the "for girls" label seems ridiculous. The game sold more than almost anything on PC at the time.

So what's the worst thing you did to a Sim?

Maybe it will surprise you, or maybe you remember it, but back in 1995, Mortal Kombat 3 was one of the best-selling games in the US, pushing over 2.5 million copies across home consoles!

The competitors were not very strong this year, but it was still a huge achievement for the franchise.

What made the game so great was its fast-paced gameplay overhaul. Adding the run button and dial-a-combos completely changed the tempo, while new cyber ninjas like Cyrax and Sektor gave it an iconic new vibe. Plus, pulling off those ridiculous new Animalities was peak 90s hype!

In my opinion, MK3 was the best in the series, or at least the one I spent the most time on.

Which one was your favorite?

I started my FIFA experience with FIFA 96, which was amazing for its time, but when FIFA 98 dropped in late 1997, it felt like a much bigger game.

It had a huge number of national teams, indoor football, better atmosphere and a very memorable soundtrack (Blur's Song 2 is unforgettable). The gameplay was fast, simple and fun, even if it was not very realistic. It also brought massive improvements for the time: a heavily upgraded 3D engine, actual tactical team strategies, better player AI, and a properly working offside rule.

Later FIFA games became more polished, but FIFA 98 had its own identity. It is one of the few FIFA games that people still remember for the music, menus, game modes, and overall atmosphere, not only for the football itself.

For me, it is probably the most iconic FIFA from the classic era.

What do you think? Which of the older FIFA games is the most memorable for you?

Obviously Mario Kart 64 and Crash Team Racing get all the love from that era, but I feel like Re-Volt is criminally slept on.

The coolest thing about it was how it actually committed to the RC car gimmick. Instead of just driving on standard tracks, you were tiny. They made normal, everyday stuff feel absolutely massive. Like, you're literally dodging a wooden kitchen table leg like it's a giant monument, or panicking because your tiny plastic car is about to get swallowed by a patch of dirt in some random backyard. It just had a really cool, cohesive vibe that most kart racers didn't really bother with.

Also, the physics were kind of insane. Way harder than Mario Kart. If you took a corner too fast or clipped a curb, your car would realistically flip over and you'd have to spam a button to right yourself while the AI zipped past. It could be super frustrating, but it was honestly really satisfying once you actually figured out how to handle the weight of the cars.

The wildest part though is that the game is still alive. Acclaim went bankrupt ages ago, but a dedicated community basically rebuilt the whole engine (it's called RVGL now) so it runs perfectly on modern PCs. People are still making custom tracks and cars for it today, which is wild for a game that hasn't had corporate backing in over 20 years.

Anyway, just wanted to give some love to a childhood favorite. Did anyone else play this back in the day, or did I just have weird taste as a kid?

System Shock 2 is one of the clearest examples of a game that was great, but difficult to sell to a mainstream audience when it launched in 1999. Back then, players had very fixed expectations of what a first-person shooter should be.

Instead of a linear run-and-gun, System Shock 2 heavily blends multiple genres:

• RPG progression and character builds
• Strict inventory management and scarce resources
• Hacking mechanics and survival horror
• Environmental storytelling via audio logs

Progression relies on piecing together the mystery of the ship's downfall, managing tight resources, and carefully planning a character build rather than just clearing out enemies level by level. System Shock 2 forced you to read, listen, experiment, and accept that the game would not always make you feel powerful.

The Von Braun functions as a crime scene where players must actively uncover a past catastrophe, driven by audio logs that act as the main plot rather than background filler.

Its influence on modern gaming is so massive. Almost every trope praised in titles like BioShock, Prey, and Dead Space already existed here: the audio logs, the isolated setting, the collapsed society, and the untrustworthy voices guiding you over the radio. Later games just took these elements and made them more accessible with smoother combat and stronger visual identities. System Shock 2 remains the colder, rougher, and more uncompromising version of that blueprint.

When people say SS2 didn't sell well, it wasn't a failure of the game. The audience just wasn't ready for a shooter that could be more than just shooting.

Did you play it back then, or did you discover it later through modern games that use its formula?

Honestly, I wasn't even going to post about this here. But the more I sit with it, the more I realize this shift completely upends the entire concept of gaming as we know it. I just couldn't sit back and watch where the industry is heading without throwing in my two cents.

Yesterday, on July 1st, Sony made it official: physical disc production for new PlayStation games will end completely in January 2028. From that point on, new titles will be digital-only, either straight from the PlayStation Store or via a download code inside a retail box. Sony’s official logic is that roughly 85% of their game sales are now digital. But we all know that’s just a convenient excuse. It’s been all about maximizing profit for a long time now.

To be clear, the discs you already own will keep working. Nothing in your current library is getting bricked. But the PS4 and PS5 are now officially the final PlayStation generations to support physical games. From 2028 onward, you don't buy console games anymore; you just rent licenses that live on someone else's server.

For the collectors among us, this is where it hurts. A "Collector's Edition" after 2028 is just a statue, an artbook and an empty steelbook case. It's merchandise built around an empty spot. The game itself, preserved on physical media, is gone. A limited edition of a digital license. Think about how absurd that sounds.

Nobody finds it strange to own a physical collection of books, records, or movies. You take a vinyl off the shelf, you put it on, it plays. Whether it’s 1985 or 2045, the experience is yours. Why should games be any different? The irony is that vinyl is experiencing a massive revival because labels kept pressing it. Sony is doing the exact opposite with a format people are still actively buying.

And almost as a cruel demonstration, on the exact same day, Sony announced that the PS3 and Vita digital stores are officially being sunsetted. Discs from 2006 still spin and play perfectly fine. Meanwhile, the digital storefronts from that exact same era are being switched off. That is the entire reality of digital "ownership" summarized in two sentences.

If there's any silver lining to this absolute mess, it’s that it might finally push people back toward PC gaming.

Look, we all know physical PC releases died out a decade ago. But the difference is that PC players actually fought for true ownership through DRM-free platforms like GOG. You can literally download an offline installer, throw it on a backup drive, and it’s yours forever. No corporate master server required. If Sony forcing digital-only makes console players realize they’re being scammed and drives them to a platform where "buying" still actually means owning, I’ll take it as a win.

Because let’s be honest about where the console market is heading: you’re essentially paying $70 for the privilege of borrowing a file until some executive decides to turn the servers off. It’s a terrible direction for the industry. The worst thing we can do is just roll over and accept this as "progress." We have to vote with our wallets. Support DRM-free storefronts, buy physical while it’s still an option, and stop paying full price for temporary licenses.

For those of us who still love having a physical collection, I actually put together a practical guide on how to back up and futureproof your PS4/PS5 discs before 2028 cuts us off: https://bestclassicpcgames.com/futureproof-ps4-ps5-game-cd-collection/

I’m curious where everyone else stands on this. How many of you keep a console shelf next to your PC setup, and what’s your game plan for it once the discs stop spinning?

Diablo II launched on June 28, 2000 in the US and June 30 in Europe, so the game turns 26 now.

That feels slightly unreal to write. Back then, if someone told me some event happened 26 years ago, I’d be like, "Lol what, was that before or after the dinosaurs?"

Now that I’m older, that period of time doesn’t feel completely unimaginable anymore... but man, it's still a lot of years, and so much has changed since then.

I always go back to hitting Act III for the first time. Not even a big boss fight, just stepping onto the Kurast Docks and realizing the whole vibe had completely shifted. Going from the desert straight into that muddy, rainy jungle, those tiny little flayers rushing you from everywhere, and that weird oppressive music. It just felt way older and nastier than anything before it.

And then Mephisto. That bridge, that room... basically the start of the "time to farm this guy forever" phase for everyone.

It's wild how almost every act had a specific memory tied to it. The Rogue Encampment music. Getting absolutely deleted by Duriel before your loading screen even finished. Walking into Chaos Sanctuary. Even Baal runs that basically just became late-night chat rooms where you happened to click on monsters.

Honestly, I still remember these maps clearer than games I played last month.

What's the one D2 memory that stuck with you the most? A ridiculous drop, getting scammed with a fake Shako, a LAN session, or just a town theme? Are you playing the Resurrected version ?

I was genuinely excited for the mobile launch of Guild Wars Reforged. The original game has exactly the kind of loop I've been craving: a few solid classes, deep skill combinations, a massive world to roam, and a pure focus on questing, mob hunting, and dungeoneering for better armor. No endless daily chores, just a great old-school RPG.

Instead, the mobile launch has been a total heartbreak. I downloaded it on my Google Pixel 10, and it is unplayable.

• The performance is terrible: Even on the lowest possible graphics settings, the lag and stuttering are unreal. This engine is decades old... there is absolutely no reason a modern flagship phone should be choking and rubber-banding like this.
• The monetization is insulting: They slapped an incredibly restrictive mobile wrapper on it. If you try to play the free tier, you get hit with literal pop-up ads just for moving between maps, on top of being locked out of public chat and trading.
• The sad reality: The brilliant gameplay is technically still buried under there, but the execution of this port ruins it. It’s incredibly frustrating because I don't need fancy graphics or overcomplicated systems... I just wanted that pure, satisfying loop in my pocket.

Did anyone else here try to jump into this for a nostalgia trip, or did you wisely stay far away? Because right now, it’s just a massive disappointment for me.

I have to admit, I’m a bit late to the party here. I only discovered this game a few years ago while doing some research, and I honestly don't know how it managed to slip under my radar for so long. That said, I am deeply torn on it...

On one hand, the setting, the characters, and the whole Aztec-noir vibe are incredible. Manny Calavera is a legend, and the writing has this amazing, unique charm you just don't see in modern games. The world-building is easily 10/10.

But wrestling with those original 1998 tank controls and trying to decipher the completely baffling "moon logic" puzzles? It's an absolute chore. I wanted so badly to just soak in the story, but the actual playing part kept getting in the way of the experience.

Did people genuinely enjoy the gameplay loop back in the day, or did everyone just use a walkthrough and tolerate the mechanics because the vibes were immaculate?