I tried playing Harvest Moon on the SNES today and having played Stardew Valley for hours, I thought I'd try and see how tolerable the original Harvest Moon was in comparison. I know and understand it is unfair because there's a 20 year gap between Harvest Moon and Stardew Valley, while also discrediting Harvest Moon's later entries since there's more than one.

Harvest Moon to me is a bit hard to revisit. Having to get used to only carrying two tools at the same time, your farm doesn't seem as big, you don't have a way to know that you're tired as readily, you just have to watch for the signs and the village you visit doesn't seem as characteristic. It's a basic farming sim, it has to start somewhere.

But Stardew Valley does so many things that it is easier to revisit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] fefellama@lemm.ee 13 points 5 days ago

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).