Board 8 > Which of the three NES classics holds up the best?

(+) Yeah! (+)

DanKirby posted...

I played and beat Zelda for the first time a couple years ago. I only resorted to a guide for one thing, and I felt really dumb about it afterwards (the monster that needs food). Sure, there were plenty of moments where I was just bombing every wall in sight until I found something, but I managed to get through it fine.

Yeah see, no patience for me with stuff like that that's just not fun.

Now let's stop hating on Zelda 1 anyway because it's still a pretty great game.

The issue with Zelda 1, in regards to the subject of this topic, isn't that it's aged particularly poorly overall. It's that compared to SMB 1, it's not even close.

Yesmar_ posted...

The issue with Zelda 1, in regards to the subject of this topic, isn't that it's aged particularly poorly overall. It's that compared to SMB 1, it's not even close.

It's both, because SMB1 still rules and the later Zeldas offered far more actual contextual clues.

Cracked walls are not context they're just purple doors that open with your purple key

pjbasis posted...

Cracked walls are not context they're just purple doors that open with your purple key

what

a purple key for a purple door sounds like context to me

Like for 4 year olds sure

pjbasis posted...

Like for 4 year olds sure

The point is obviously that at least some context exists in the first place! It sounds like you're literally arguing for contextless game design that encourages things like bombing every random wall? How fun and exciting and not at all tedious for the player!

As others have brought up, it's really not that big of a deal. Just a dumb and archaic design choice in Zelda 1 that we can all laugh at today. There's a reason they never went back to it.

It's funny, even modern Metroid games have random bombable or shootable walls, yet it works in those games. I'd say for two reasons: you're not forced to use an item with limited supply to reveal the secret, and it's a far more natural part of the gameplay to shoot everything. Oh, and a third reason: those games almost always have some sort of scanning mechanism to reveal those secrets later in the game, which makes stumbling on them early or accidentally a nice little surprise. And even then, those walls or floors normally have some context clues that they're breakable.

I would argue there is context though. It's just not direct. There are patterns you can pick up on like I mentioned before. Only 1 "secret" per screen, defined as a place Link can move to an "underground" scene from the world map. Like if there's a shop in a screen, there won't be anything else. It's not like every screen even has walls that are bombable in the first place. In dungeons, it's very easy to find out what to bomb if you just look at the map (also because only the centers of walls will be bombable). Only does the overworld have some tough calls to find. Really a bigger complaint no one has mentioned is how the game punishes you for discovering secrets and taking your rupees sometimes. I think that's dumb. And you should definitely be able to carry more bombs. I get that they're powerful in battle though, but maybe it could be just be easy to refill on the world map when you're trying to use them for discovery purposes.

iono my point is that lots of zelda dumbed things down way too far. To me a lot of things you call context insults my intelligence almost as much as arrow just pointing to things. What more modern games do is put genuine puzzles behind these "hidden" areas. Metroid games often show you the item you even want but make it difficult to get unless you know how to use your items well. Which is great! But I think it's way too simple to just do the "old game bad!" here.

Fair argument. I think the problem with that though is Zelda 1 never explains itself. This is what I mean by bad cryptic design. Like I had no idea about this "1 secret per screen" thing - and that's actually really neat! But of course the game never tells you or hints at that in anyway. That kind of design works for some things, but there has to be some way to more organically discover that's part of the game - a text dialogue somewhere or something letting you know about the pattern. I've beaten Zelda 1 three times and never knew that. I'm sure I could beat it three more times and never know that, because I'm not going out of my way to bomb everything in sight.

That's actually the type of thing Tunic does brilliantly that makes it good cryptic design to me. Outer Wilds is another perfect example of more modern design that organically reveals its secrets and patterns in its game world while being cryptic. Metroid games too, teasing items early, as you mentioned. I just think Zelda 1 does it extremely poorly and it is indeed "old design bad" to me. But I certainly won't disagree that far too many modern games insult your intelligence.

Mario

_Blur_ posted...

I just think Zelda 1 does it extremely poorly and it is indeed "old design bad" to me.

I mean it's certainly not perfect or anything, but often I find these arguments are actually purely subjective because it comes down to "I didn't get it, so I hate it" or "I DID get it, so I like it"

I feel like this gets into a whole can of worms though where I can describe some types of game design as like climbing a mountain, because the mountain wasn't meant to be climbed. Do we really need all game design things to be well communicated? Do we need to beat every game? Why not have some things that are just there because it's difficult and it IS unfair but that's just how it is.

pjbasis posted...

Do we really need all game design things to be well communicated? Do we need to beat every game? Why not have some things that are just there because it's difficult and it IS unfair but that's just how it is.

the answers to these two questions are "yes". Completely obtuse designs like Zelda 1 are relics from designs from the arcade era, where looking beatable but actually being incredibly difficult or complex was ideal for sucking up quarters. Or, more relevant, Zelda 1's secrets were supposed to be found by multiple people working together and sharing them, which requires them to all have their own copy. They did this because NES games weren't that long or large, and the only way to ensure people "got their money's worth" was for some level of difficulty being in the way stopping them from beating the game quickly.

but above all, video games are meant to be fun. Difficulty can be fun, but unfairness never is.

pjbasis posted...

I mean it's certainly not perfect or anything, but often I find these arguments are actually purely subjective because it comes down to "I didn't get it, so I hate it" or "I DID get it, so I like it"

Probably true. In this particular case I just can't imagine the actual mechanic of bombing every random object being one someone would like!

I feel like this gets into a whole can of worms though where I can describe some types of game design as like climbing a mountain, because the mountain wasn't meant to be climbed. Do we really need all game design things to be well communicated? Do we need to beat every game? Why not have some things that are just there because it's difficult and it IS unfair but that's just how it is.

This is also a great point. I'm all for games being weird and the designers just doing whatever the fuck they want. There's no mandated blueprint to follow so yeah, Zelda 1 can just be Zelda 1.

Honestly this has been a great discussion on a niche subject. Would love to see some podcast discussion or deep dive YouTube videos on cryptic secrets in games: thoughts on how to do them right, what worked for certain people, etc. etc.

Hbthebattle posted...

Difficulty can be fun, but unfairness never is.

Spoken like someone who never played a competitive game!

pjbasis posted...

Spoken like someone who never played a competitive game!

Competitive games are inherently NOT unfair because they generally provide players with equal options at the start of every match. I don't see how that's relevant.

Anyone who's played fighting games understands every game has legitimately bad match ups. I think you're focusing way too hard on developer intent. Obviously it's MEANT to be fair, but that's actually an almost impossible standard to achieve because it's hard.

yeah but i still don't understand the point you're making because zelda 1 doesn't try particularly hard

Again too much on developer intent. I understand the less than honest ways games can be hard of the era. And like the way I said that EVERY game doesn't need to be fair, it's also true that not EVERY, or even most games, need to be unfair. That era was knee deep in that shit, and zelda isn't even on the upper end of BS.

But just throwing it all away because some of the motivations were impure doesn't mean there wasn't something lost in the name of "fun" that just means you can beat the game with modest effort. Like, it's alright dude, you don't have to play and like zelda 1. Not every game is designed to be fun for you specifically.

Of those three, Super Mario Bros, but there are NES games that hold up way better than any of those three.

This is a little bit of a stretch but there actually is something in the game that might clue you in to the fact that there can only be one underground secret per screen:
some screens with one of those big entrances to a dungeon will also have a secret staircase underneath an Armos statue, but it just leads to the same place as the already-existing door. You might use that fact to assume that there can only be one unique underground thing per screen

Another fact that helps with finding overworld bomb walls is that you will only ever find a staircase in a wall that can be approached from the bottom, never the side or top. Every already-exposed staircase follows this rule so you might extrapolate from there

Theres a rule to the pushable blocks too but I forget exactly what it is. Something like the only pushable blocks are farthest left and closest to the bottom of the screen

I THINK theres a rule to the burnable trees but I cant remember it at all, but IIRC they break the rule once where theres a hidden Heart Container which is rude

It's probably a pain to work out but I am curious how much these rules help. Like say one limited bombing walls to areas that don't already have a secret and only walls that can be approached from the bottom. I feel like one still ends up with a lot of places to bomb but maybe I turn out to be wrong if I were to actually count.

pjbasis posted...

Like, it's alright dude, you don't have to play and like zelda 1. Not every game is designed to be fun for you specifically.

isn't this hypocritical from someone who complained that visible bombable walls insulted your intelligence

Well its not even just places that already have a secret, its places that dont have ANY other entrance

And yes it is still a lot of places

Yeah, I meant every location with a visible entrance to tell the player to stop looking for more.

Hbthebattle posted...

isn't this hypocritical from someone who complained that visible bombable walls insulted your intelligence

Modern games substitute the challenge that zelda 1 provides with other kinds. You'll notice that link to the past for example doesn't have nearly the amount of bombable walls zelda 1 has. Because even they knew putting a visible sign essentially removes the entire point. At the very least having very infrequent cracked walls can make it harder to find since you're not constantly on the look out.

TeamRocketElite posted...

Yeah, I meant every location with a visible entrance to tell the player to stop looking for more.

What also helped me is realizing that I think more than 80% of the overworld tiles have something. Being unable to find anything of value (or devalue, door repairs...) on a screen is the exception.

that's not quite a fair comparison because every other zelda game had many more different types of items they could use for puzzles and zelda 1 was limited to basically just bombs and the fire items. they had less cracked walls mostly because they had more than 2 ways to effectively hide secrets.

Let's be clear, Zelda 1 did not have "cracked" walls at all. The game would be utterly trivialized if it were.

Zelda 3 has less bombable walls because of variety for secrets, sure, but that doesn't explain why there are shown visible cracks. I can't say for sure why they made this decision beyond "make it easier" but it's also true that this does NOT trivialize Lttp the way it would have zelda 1.

Something I've been wondering about Zelda 1 Second Quest. How was the player supposed to figure out they can just walk through some walls in a dungeon? As a kid, I think I just ran at a wall because I was angry at it and then it just worked.

I agree that Mario "holds up the best" by today's standards in a way, but there's also the least to it. It's basically a more primitive version of the Mario games that would come later, whereas Zelda and Metroid are still pretty unique to this day, especially Zelda. For that reason, Zelda is my favorite, as its a pretty singularly unique experience, and also if you play it with a guide it basically transforms it into a fun little arcadey dungeon exploration game.

TeamRocketElite posted...

Something I've been wondering about Zelda 1 Second Quest. How was the player supposed to figure out they can just walk through some walls in a dungeon? As a kid, I think I just ran at a wall because I was angry at it and then it just worked.

I don't know when you first encounter a wall like that, but there is a point in one of the dungeons where a staircase spits you out into a room that sequesters you to one wall. It doesn't blow up when you bomb it and there's absolutely no other way out. So you just reset the game or try pushing against it.

So since Mario is the run away winner, what other NES games hold up well? Are there any that held better than Zelda 1 (besides SMB3)?

TeamRocketElite posted...

Something I've been wondering about Zelda 1 Second Quest. How was the player supposed to figure out they can just walk through some walls in a dungeon? As a kid, I think I just ran at a wall because I was angry at it and then it just worked.

IIRC theres a portion of the dungeon map that you just cant get to otherwise that has the Raft you NEED to finish the game

charmander6000 posted...

So since Mario is the run away winner, what other NES games hold up well? Are there any that held better than Zelda 1 (besides SMB3)?

The obvious answer is Mega Man 2

But there are many more

The Mega Mans are an easy answer

Punch-Out!!
Tetris
Lolo games?

Considering only semi-popular games, Kirby's Adventure and the DuckTales also came to mind

It might be cheating to say stuff like Galaga, Gradius, and Pac-Msn but its true

There are so many games from the early 90s that are really really polished and stand up to any game of the 16 bit era.

Pretty much all the well known sidescrolling platformers hold up aside from the ones that go too far with exploration or RPG elements.
Kid Icarus and Ghosts n Goblins probably being among the few that don't, and the latter has the partial excuse of being a port of dubious quality.

I don't think Zelda 1 would become a better game by showing you visual cues on what's bombable. I also can't imagine later Zelda games without these types cues, but think about it, longer games been cryptic all the way can get tiresome, and Zelda 1 is only long if you put up the work yourself, and there's a fast paced game beneath it all. Also more modern games rely more on plot and execution, and it's more a necessity than a commodity cause reasons like the internet trivializing the secrets, because they don't want players losing focus on the story by been stuck or because these players would resort to switching to the thousands of other games already available, and if it's a franchise they want you up to date to be able to play the sequel.

As mentioned before it was ok if you didn't beat the game in a short time, and as far as story went you didn't miss much if you hadn't seen the ending yet and the sequel was out, it was more about the journey.

Castlevania III

How cryptic Zelda and Metroid are is being overrated. I know at like 6 or 7 years old I beat Metroid without a guide and it's not like it took 500 hours.

Zelda I did as well but I remember having some sort of guidance. Not an actual guide but like I know I had a friend who played it and told me to bomb things and about burning that tree.

They're not totally unambiguous but They're not Simon's Quest either.

Now I mean the answer is still Mario but not cause the other two are too cryptic that's all I'm saying

yo SImon's Quest ain't even that bad either, there were like two points in the game that I got through because I remembered egoraptor's video though

The kneeling stuff (probably the two things you're talking about) in Simon's Quest is too much. Like I guess if you just ignore those it's not bad but I don't think you should just ignore those.

I've always thought that SMB was cryptic with the last castle.

From watching Mario 35, the looping castles claim a lot of victims.

its possible that a person reached 8-4 never once discovering that you can make invisible blocks appear by hitting them from underneath, and not realized you need to do that to reach the floating pipe

but I also think its decently likely a player like that would just jump in that spot where the block is anyway