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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Super Mario Bros. for me. My thoughts:

The Legend of Zelda

There's still some fun to be had here with a few good dungeons and the occasional rewarding exploration, but that's about it. The game is far too cryptic for its own good and many design choices were clearly made just to sell guides. Blowing up random walls with zero environmental clues as to why they would be bombable is bad game design and not fun.

Metroid

Metroid is my favorite series in gaming, but oooof. The original Metroid is easily the option I'd want to play the least. Brilliantly ahead of its time with non-linear level design and atmosphere, but a few baffling design decisions ruin the entire game. The biggest for me is easily the death/respawn system: when you die, you start with almost no health and have to manually replenish it. Every single time. The game quickly devolves into a spamming enemies for health simulator. Also, Zero Mission exists.

Super Mario Bros.

Still a classic that's fun to pick up and play any time. Floaty physics might take a little getting used to, but they're really not that difficult once you get the momentum down. While Zelda and Metroid were more experimental, let's not deny the experimental nature of SMB 1 either with its plethora of secrets - something very few games had done at this point and none to the degree of SMB.

I can see people voting for Zelda and Metroid if you grew up with them and know them like the back of your hand, nullifying many of their flaws. But even then, I've always found that Mario is just more fun to play.

Mario 1 can be enjoyed by anyone today. You need a bachelor's in NESology to get through adventure games of the era

There's only like three walls and a single bush in all of Zelda 1 that have to be bombed/burned in order to complete the game. The rock you have to bomb on the overworld has a clue that isn't particularly great, but it's not a huge leap in logic to figure out, and the bush you have to burn is extremely obvious. Then there are a few walls in the final dungeon you have to bomb, but it's always a case of "you arrived in the room from a staircase and there are no doors in the room" so obviously you have to bomb them

Yeah Zelda and Metroid have some uhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Mario for most people. Zelda for me!

I beat metroid on nes but not without getting out the graphing paper. Navigating that world is just brutal.

Zelda is slightly better in that the world is much less confusing.

SMB still holds up incredibly well and is the easy choice.

I would also heavily object to the idea that Zelda was designed to sell guides.

Mario is easily the most accessible. Platformers as a whole always have their own unique physics and mechanics (even within the same series), so someone playing SMB1 for the first time today shouldn't have any more trouble adjusting to it than they would to any other game in this style.

Zelda and Metroid definitely have that reputation (in modern times) of being "too puzzly" by old game standards, but I would say that Metroid is worse than Zelda in that particular regard. A new player could try to play Zelda and find it a hard game, but I think that most people on average would be more likely to get totally stuck in Metroid than in Zelda.

Expected this to be Mario 1, Zelda 1 and FF1 rather than Metroid 1.

FWIW, I think FF1 has held up better than Zelda 1.

Final Fantasy came out almost 2 years after Zelda and there were already a ton of successful RPG games that FF1 was able to use as a blueprint (e.g. Dragon Quest, Wizardry, D&D). I don't think it's really fair to compare it to early NES adventure games.

A replays factored into the question? LoZ1 is great for replays where the player already roughly knows where everything important is.

SMB holds up the best if you were to hand it to someone who hasn't played them before.

neonreaper posted...

I would also heavily object to the idea that Zelda was designed to sell guides.

Guides weren't even around yet right? It was definitely designed to get you talking about the game with friends if you got stuck though.

SMB1, and this isn't even close. The gameplay and controls are legitimately timeless, and while the formula has improved, SMB1 still holds up as well as any game from that era.

Zelda is virtually unbeatable without a guide.

Metroid has all sorts of issues ranging from the respawn system to navigation headaches.

game guides were around in Japan by the time of Zelda; as far as I can tell they really took off after Tower of Druaga in 1984

Mario 1 is a timeless game

WazzupGenius00 posted...

game guides were around in Japan by the time of Zelda; as far as I can tell they really took off after Tower of Druaga in 1984

looking it up apparently smb1 was one of the most popular strategy guides of japan in 85

SMB1 and The Legend of Zelda both aged well enough. I think the main difference is that, even as the Mario series improved its basic mechanics, the level design built around the old mechanics still offer a unique experience. I don't know what the original Zelda really offers compared to its 2D sequels, but there also isn't anything wrong with it.

I guess I differentiate between something aging poorly and something being improved upon. I think for something to age poorly, it has to lack a standardized feature - so, the lack of an in-game map in the original Metroid makes it a hard sell. The controls in early 3D platformers fall in a similar boat. I don't see anything in the original Zelda that would make it hard for a new player to pick up - I would just suggest pretty much any other 2D game in the franchise over it.

Lack of maps in Metroid are part of the charm, not every game needs a map, but I do agree with the death/respawn system been suboptimal. Zelda is a very tight game with enough clues to make you consider trying out the things you need, but c'mon, it's friggin Mario!

Yeah Metroid is small enough that you don't need a map I think. Just really needed to respawn with full health.

Granted, some areas could stand some differentiation to help with navigation without a map.

SMB, easily. Zelda and Metroid were always impenetrable for me. I say this as someone who plays LTTP rando and enjoys metroidvanias. So it isn't even a matter of "holding up." It's simple that the other two were never accessible to begin with.

Metroid with 3 votes now! Look at it go

Yeah, the lack of a map is only a problem because so many areas use the exact same color palette. Again, a problem Zero Mission addressed superbly. But the death/respawn system is still far more egregious to me.

As for the whole Zelda and strategy guide thing, I thought I recalled reading an article about this, but it could have been about a different game. Regardless, the Nintendo Power Hotline was launched in 1987 and it's well-known it was the most popular game to call in about. And remember, calls cost money.

azuarc posted...

It's simple that the other two were never accessible to begin with.

No way at least for Zelda. A modern day player should still be able to find a 3-5 dungeons and feel like they progressed a bit before giving up.

I have never forgotten that my mom made me do gardening chores when I called the Nintendo Hotline a few times for help in Link's Awakening.

You people and your 'virtually unbeatable without a guide', sheesh, now I see why Tunic was so unpopular

I beat Zelda 1 just fine as a kid, it took me a really long time to figure out how to get to level 5 but once I did that the rest was fine. It's not actually that cryptic a game at all - most of the hints make sense and there's a hint for how to get to every major thing in the game. I think people get tricked into thinking that it's cryptic because the single most cryptic hint in the game, "EASTMOST PENNINSULA (sic) IS THE SECRET", is one of the very first ones you see, and it's so cryptic that Zelda 1 experts can't even agree on what it means (the hint is not in the Japanese version of the game). But almost every hint after that tells you what to do if you follow its directions!

Zelda 1 is still a juggernaut of a game in my opinion. A truly open world with combat that's easy to understand but challenging to master and a wide array of items that are actually useful, with dungeons that are sprawling and complex but not overwhelming. Some of the decisions they made with bombable walls on the overworld are a bit perplexing (I don't know how anyone is supposed to find the burn bush that leads to the game's final heart container - I never found it as a kid), but other than that everything in the game has aged like a fine wine, in my opinion; only better with time. Zelda 1 randomizer is still the best randomizer that exists because of how well everything in the game works when shuffled around; the modular design of the dungeons make randomizing them incredibly fun.

Super Mario Bros still kicks ass too. Metroid is a little more rough around the edges (starting with 30 health each time, oof) but I still think it has something to offer; I love how challenging the world is to navigate safely, it really makes the deeper recesses of the world feel dangerous and thrilling to explore.

Paratroopa1 posted...

But almost every hint after that tells you what to do if you follow its directions!

I mean it still took like 20 years for people to figure out what "10th enemy has the bomb" means.

Paratroopa1 posted...

(I don't know how anyone is supposed to find the burn bush that leads to the game's final heart container - I never found it as a kid)

Burn every tree in the game is how I think I found it. I don't think I actually set fire to every tree. But, that was close enough to the start area that I got around to it before giving up.

As an aside, this reminded me of people going around hitting random walls in Elden Ring 50 times and I'm sad to discover that was just a bug.

TeamRocketElite posted...

I mean it still took like 20 years for people to figure out what "10th enemy has the bomb" means.

ok that one is pretty cryptic too yeah

When you discover that almost every tile on the world map has exactly 1 "secret" it becomes a little easier to hunt.

pjbasis posted...

No way at least for Zelda. A modern day player should still be able to find a 3-5 dungeons and feel like they progressed a bit before giving up.

I'm sure I'd do a lot better today, but as a kid, I couldn't even survive across like 3 screens. When I did avoid the enemies and try to scoot to the next screen, I had no idea what anything was or what I was doing. So I'm viewing this through the lens of a 7-year-old. I've simply refused to go back and try again. It didn't look appealing.

LTTP, otoh, I was able to be convinced to try for the first time in 2016.

Super Mario Bros. is the best aged game from the generation

FL81 posted...

Super Mario Bros. is the best aged game from the generation

From the entire generation? I dunno about that. SMB3 is still loads better than SMB1.

If 7 year old you was legitimately losing to Octoroks, I don't think your skill level at the time was high to really give the game a fair chance. Trying to explore the world while having to avoid all combat is going to make it a miserable experience even beyond the common complaints about the game. Not much joy in discovering a dungeon either since it just means even harder enemies and sometimes forced combat.

With that said, if the game really doesn't sound appealing, there's not much reason to force the issue and try again.

It's 100% Mario.

4 year olds can still play and enjoy it today, I just don't think the other two can say the same.

The other two are great in their own right, but the answer has to be Mario- as proven by the popularity of Mario 35 last year.

Mario has held up great. Zelda has held up OK but it definitely has issues. Metroid wasn't even good when it was new.

Various things about how Zelda 1 uses bombs are annoying and that's probably the game's biggest issue. But as for needing to bomb random walls to beat it though, what? Maybe finding the last dungeon was a little too obscure? That's about it. If the game's not for you then cool but maybe quit with the inaccurate meme opinions? This isn't too far removed from calling Contra "one of the hardest games ever" or something.

But yeah, I do see problems with Zelda 1 bombs. Mario 1 has no comparable issues and is a good game so I could seeing going with it. But Mario 1 has been copied, iterated, and improved on so much that it stands out much less at this point. Zelda's franchise took different directions so Zelda 1 stands out much more as it's own, good thing than Mario 1 at this point.

Mario 1 is more accessible to the absolute newbie but I don't put much stock in that.

Zelda 1 is like the only Zelda game where bombs are actually fun to use! Until at least BotW

They're too stingy with them though. You should be able to carry like 20 bombs

Final Fantasy holds up better than any of those >_>

AxemRedRanger posted...

But Mario 1 has been copied, iterated, and improved on so much that it stands out much less at this point.

Nah, I'd disagree. Its level design is still iconic and memorable. There's value in its simplicity.

AxemRedRanger posted...

Various things about how Zelda 1 uses bombs are annoying and that's probably the game's biggest issue. But as for needing to bomb random walls to beat it though, what? Maybe finding the last dungeon was a little too obscure? That's about it. If the game's not for you then cool but maybe quit with the inaccurate meme opinions? This isn't too far removed from calling Contra "one of the hardest games ever" or something.

I admittedly don't remember the game totally well, but I'm 95% sure there was at the very least one dungeon (4 or 5?) that was absurd to get to. And looking it up made me infuriated that I wasted like 8 hours wandering the same areas of the small map thinking I just wasn't exploring correctly. Even having context-clueless bomb spots for side-items is indefensible to me because it's such bad design, but anything mandatory is in a whole 'nother ballpark.

Seriously, it's a cryptic game and I'd be shocked if anyone defending it in this department didn't play it when they were young. And for the record, I love cryptic sfuff done correctly. Outer Wilds is probably my favorite game of all time and it's got plenty of obscure brainscratchers. But Zelda 1, nah man, cryptic in the worst way.

Despite all this, I still do think it's worth playing with a guide - only when needed of course - and probably the rewind feature as well (because combat isn't particularly good and those last dungeons are brutal). But I don't want to sound like I hate it. It's a good game with plenty of merit!

Ngamer posted...

The other two are great in their own right, but the answer has to be Mario- as proven by the popularity of Mario 35 last year.

Man I put like 50 hours into SMB 35. What an absolute joy. And also goddammit Nintendo.

Mario 1 is still fun to play which is more than I can say about the other two

They could make a Zelda 35/99 work if they tried hard enough

_Blur_ posted...

I'm 95% sure there was at the very least one dungeon (4 or 5?) that was absurd to get to.

Level 4 requires getting the Raft from Level 3 and using a raft point fairly close to the starting location on the overworld. Raft points are conspicuous but I don't think the game tells you that the raft can be used there.

Level 5 requires going to an area with a looping screen if you take the wrong path. You need to use the "Go up, up the mountain ahead" clue here and go up 4 times in a row on the screen below level 5.

Does either on sound familiar?

Maybe I'm just familiar with the game but I think you can even start to get a feel for how the designers like to hide things.

Honestly with Zelda it's the combat that ruins it for me. You take way too much knockback and the invincibility frames don't last long enough, resulting in you getting pinballed to death.

Then you get to start back at the beginning and have to grind your hearts back up

_Blur_ posted...

Seriously, it's a cryptic game and I'd be shocked if anyone defending it in this department didn't play it when they were young.

Oh god it's the fucking Tunic topic all over again

I beat this game in 1996, when I was 8, and the only resource I had was the instruction manual (which WAS a big help, admittedly)

Paratroopa1 posted...

Oh god it's the fucking Tunic topic all over again

I beat this game in 1996, when I was 8, and the only resource I had was the instruction manual (which WAS a big help, admittedly)

Para I fucking love Tunic to death and it would easily be my game of the year if it weren't for Elden Ring. Tunic actually has clues for all of its "cryptic" puzzles. They're really not comparable at ALL.

Not to mention I would argue beating it at 8 could work against the argument you're trying to make. I beat plenty of shit as a kid I wouldn't have the patience for today because we have unlimited time as kids. And just doing dumb stuff in a game is fun as a kid. Just running around the same game world beating up enemies is a joy as a kid. As an adult, you probably have higher standards and like to see games organically change and progress.

It took like a year to beat OoT for me as a kid and I bet half the hundreds (thousands?) of hours I spent with it was just walking around Hyrule Field lol

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.

_Blur_ posted...

Para I fucking love Tunic to death and it would easily be my game of the year if it weren't for Elden Ring. Tunic actually has clues for all of its "cryptic" puzzles. They're really not comparable at ALL.

Not to mention I would argue beating it at 8 could work against the argument you're trying to make. I beat plenty of shit as a kid I wouldn't have the patience for today because we have unlimited time as kids. And just doing dumb stuff in a game is fun as a kid. Just running around the same game world beating up enemies is a joy as a kid. As an adult, you probably have higher standards and like to see games organically change and progress.

It took like a year to beat OoT for me as a kid and I bet half the hundreds (thousands?) of hours I spent with it was just walking around Hyrule Field lol

That still depends on what type of kid you were. Not unusual for a kid even back then to go "game bad!" out of frustation and go off to pester someone.