>>11865559
it was still a bit of a wild west of game design, lots of technological advancements and modest budgets and team sizes allowed for a healthy amount of experimentation too
that said, I think a lot of people tend to conflate historical importance with quality. something like SM64 or Quake might've been very important for 3D games as a whole, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're still the best at what they're trying to do. Pokemon is another clear example, massively successful but as an actual JRPG it's barebones
here's my quick verdict on what I've played:
>SM64
camera implementation is poor, sort of a big deal in a game about platforming since knowing where you are in relation to the environment is the whole idea
>FF7
boring
>MGS
controls suck, nice presentation though
>Pokemon
barebones
>Half-Life
good but has too much backtracking and the gunplay is weak. drawn out intro doesn't hold up on replays
>RE
revels in wasting your time. why do keys take up item space? why can't I just drop items on the floor?
>SotN
fun to play on a moment-to-moment basis with stellar presentation but riddled with lots of little flaws. too many to list here, see pic
>Fallout
god tier presentation and worldbuilding, a chore to play
>Quake
bullet sponge: the game with mediocre level design and guns that feel like toys
>Crash
can't remember what I disliked about it other than general game feel, something about the physics or collisions felt off
>Tomb Raider
very unique and unfortunately not a gameplay style that ever took off. unfortunately the combat has no real reason to exist, the camera can be a pain and the protag doesn't really make sense for what she's doing
>Planescape
similar to Fallout, everything is god tier except the gameplay, although Planescape at least has the benefit of having easier combat, less of it and its UI is better. I'd say Planescape is still the peak of the WRPG genre, for what it's worth