cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/13809164
Ignoring the lack of updates if the game is buggy, games back then were also more focused on quality and make gamers replay the game with unlockable features based on skills, not money. I can’t count the number of times I played Metal Gear Solid games over and over to unlock new features playing the hardest difficulty and with handicap features, and also to find Easter eggs. Speaking of Easter eggs, you’d lose a number of hours exploring every nook and cranny finding them!
I think your nostalgia period being in the NES era might just be too early. Successive attempts at an idea in any medium often fall into the following pattern:
Attempt one is explorative and clunky with no pre-existing material close enough to the target idea to draw reference from. The second now having hindsight fixes the most glaring issues from the first. The third and beyond do the same, but with very diminishing returns as most of the available improvement space was already claimed by the second release, which then becomes the nostalgia sweet spot where the familiarity vs. missing QoL ratio peaks.
My favorite game from my childhood is probably Age of Empires II, and that holds up well enough to still have a massive active community around it. Note that it’s a second release.
The “sweet spot on release two” thing is probably also the reason for the very real “Valve can’t count to three” thing. Valve’s developers have generally been more interested in mechanics and technical innovation than storytelling, so they lose motivation to continue after a second release knocks out most of the available improvement they can do, even if the last release leaves a story unfinished.
Edit: Just to be clear, I know I’m not really replying to the main point you were making. AoE2 being a big studio release even adds to it. I don’t think anyone has mentioned the whole survivor bias angle either.