Misunderstanding the NES

[agentorange]

I understand the value of the NES as a historical step in gaming, but I don't understand how anyone could stand by it as their favorite system. Putting aside the fond memories you might have for it, practically speaking speaking if you were to be stranded somewhere with only one gaming console, not counting PC, would you really take a NES? It has a vast library but most of it is low effort junk, and almost all the classics received often superior sequels on subsequent systems.

 

[Nutmeg]

The beauty of the Famicom was that it *was* the Japanese gaming market for a decade i.e. 1983 to 1993. Making a game for the Famicom was a shot at the big money, and this was at a time when you couldn't impress gamers (due to technical limitations) with anything except the joy of the moment to moment gameplay. You couldn't jam in a bunch of cutscenes, scripted bullshit, dialogue etc. you just had to make a good game.

Been playing Solomon no Kagi 2, Battle Formula and Nazo no Murasame-jou last week.

Highly recommend all 3.

Also I want to go on record that things popping out of no where is not good design and there's at least 12 pure action classics on the Famicom I know of that do not do that. Good action games encourage the player to learn a few simple patterns (e.g. don't commit to jumps to a platform obscured by the right edge) and not memorize specific pixels. A good illustration of this is e.g. the ninja pit (bullshit) compared to the rest of the game in Ninja Spirit (amazing).

 

[JDR13]

nes is crap. it's just arcade games with worse graphics. who cares.

You are confusing the master system with nes.
Nes had a large selection of game genres from strategy games(most koei early titles were localized for it) to a good selection of puzzle and jrpg's.
Hell it even had a small selection of adventure games ports from other platforms(shadow gate,maniac mansion,etc)

The Master System was mostly crap, but it had the best RPG between those two systems with Phantasy Star.

 

[Nutmeg]

Master System also had a good "port" of Rastan.

In terms of Famicom RPGs I have reason to believe Chaos World and 100 World Story might be OK, but I have mostly out grown RPGs so don't really care to try them.

 

[The Decline]

 

[Siobhan]

almost all the classics received often superior sequels on subsequent systems

But the market also became more fractured, so if you like the specific genres that are well-served by the NES (e.g. action platformers and puzzle games), there isn't a single console that does it better. For instance, Super Castlevania and Dracula X aren't exactly stellar replacements for the first three Castlevanias on NES. Once you also include Bloodlines on Genesis and Rondo of Blood on the Turbografx the 16bit line-up looks a lot better, but it's not on a single console.

Some games have sequels that are widely considered superior, but are different in subtle ways that might cause somebody to still prefer the earlier entries. For instance, no Zelda game really replicates the feel of the first two (not even BS Zelda, which is a remake of Zelda 1). The first two offer extremely little handholding and are markedly harder. And some games just got pretty shitty sequels --- Equinox lacks everything that made Solstice unique. Overall, I can see why an action platformer fan would pick the NES, just like a shmup fan would have to be insane not to pick the Turbografx, and a fighting game fan might pick the Neo Geo.

 

[Machocruz]

Equinox lacks everything that made Solstice unique.

Which reminds me: The kinds of puzzle games that NES had quite a few of already became lot less visible in the 16 bit era. It wasn't odd to see a game like Adventures of Lolo, Solomon's Key or Bubble Bobble covered as much as action games. Then the mags stopped paying attention to anything that didn't involve shooting or stabbing. Much like today.

 

[Nutmeg]

If you liked Solomon's Key 2, Sutte Hakkun and Rupupu Cube on the Super Famicom and Playstation respectively will be right up your alley.

 

[Tehdagah]

almost all the classics received often superior sequels on subsequent systems

But the market also became more fractured, so if you like the specific genres that are well-served by the NES (e.g. action platformers and puzzle games), there isn't a single console that does it better. For instance, Super Castlevania and Dracula X aren't exactly stellar replacements for the first three Castlevanias on NES. Once you also include Bloodlines on Genesis and Rondo of Blood on the Turbografx the 16bit line-up looks a lot better, but it's not on a single console.

Some games have sequels that are widely considered superior, but are different in subtle ways that might cause somebody to still prefer the earlier entries. For instance, no Zelda game really replicates the feel of the first two (not even BS Zelda, which is a remake of Zelda 1). The first two offer extremely little handholding and are markedly harder. And some games just got pretty shitty sequels --- Equinox lacks everything that made Solstice unique. Overall, I can see why an action platformer fan would pick the NES, just like a shmup fan would have to be insane not to pick the Turbografx, and a fighting game fan might pick the Neo Geo.

Super Castlevania is millions times better than the three NES Castlevania.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Contra/Probotector and Super Mario 2/3 were the best NES games, IMO.

'Contra' on NES is the best Contra game ever made. It's even better than the arcade game it's based on.

'Super Mario Bros 2' is the best SMB game ever made. After SMB2 they turned Mario into a goddamn Furry.

'Zelda II: The Adventure Of Link' is also the best Zelda game ever made. Not just my opinion, it's a scientific fact!

Contra is really good on the NES, but it's even better on the Famicom as that version has cutscenes. The text is all in Japanese, but a patch hack exists to fix that.

Super Mario Bros 2 is not a proper Super Mario game, but it's still great fun.

But your last statement... you must be trolling. Zelda 2 is a perfect example of the terrible game mechanics discussed in this thread that plagued many NES games. A Link to the Past on the SNES is miles better than Zelda 2, just to name one other Zelda game.

 

[Dickie_Anderson]

Contra/Probotector and Super Mario 2/3 were the best NES games, IMO.

'Contra' on NES is the best Contra game ever made. It's even better than the arcade game it's based on.

'Super Mario Bros 2' is the best SMB game ever made. After SMB2 they turned Mario into a goddamn Furry.

'Zelda II: The Adventure Of Link' is also the best Zelda game ever made. Not just my opinion, it's a scientific fact!

Contra is really good on the NES, but it's even better on the Famicom as that version has cutscenes. The text is all in Japanese, but a patch hack exists to fix that.

Super Mario Bros 2 is not a proper Super Mario game, but it's still great fun.

But your last statement... you must be trolling. Zelda 2 is a perfect example of the terrible game mechanics discussed in this thread that plagued many NES games. A Link to the Past on the SNES is miles better than Zelda 2, just to name one other Zelda game.

Zelda 2 is really fun, which mechanics are you referring to? There's obtuse and stupid overworld """puzzles""", but the actual core of the game is good. I like ALttP better but the way Zelda 2 used magic was far superior imo. In that game there were genuine decisions to be made between spells, e.g. upping your defence or using the jump spell or turning into a fairy or clearing the screen, depending on the scenario, and managing your mana added genuine tension to the game and felt less like the hindrance it was in ALttP

 

[Machocruz]

Yeah Contra 1 NES is still top tier Contra. Funny that Contra 3 and Hard Corps looked a bit more cartoony, to me, than the NES ones. Not in a bad way, but still. Contra 4 felt more like what the NES aesthetic would look like in 16 bit +. It's just a good Contra game too.

Zelda 2 had a brilliantly simple yet still robust 2D fencing system. High/jump, mid, and low attacks. Plunge attack. Ducking, jumping, and shield for defense. From what I've seen, no one has taken this and built a better game around it, which is a crime considering how much other shit game makers have emulated from this series.

 

[Eirinjas]

But your last statement... you must be trolling. Zelda 2 is a perfect example of the terrible game mechanics discussed in this thread that plagued many NES games. A Link to the Past on the SNES is miles better than Zelda 2, just to name one other Zelda game.

In Zelda 2 you get into real fencing matches with enemies [not just bosses], whereas in 'A Link To The Past' you just twirl-slash your way through the game like a faggot. The magic system in Zelda 2 is way more in depth. You actually level Link up with experience in Zelda 2 - what other Zelda game requires Link to level up through an experience system in order to be strong enough to face tougher challenges? [The answer is: None.] Zelda 2 also had Metroidvania-style dungeons long before it was even a thing.

 

[Siobhan]

Super Castlevania is millions times better than the three NES Castlevania

It is fairly contentious within the community. It has a lot of fans, but there's also many that would put it in the bottom tier (myself included). It has too many filler levels that don't stand out, the multidirectional whip and improved jump control makes it a much less methodical affair, the level design and enemy placement are no match for the player's vastly improved skill set, the final boss is a joke, there's too much wall meat everywhere, and difficulty is too low even on the second loop. I think it's a decent action game and not the worst among the classic Castlevanias (that would be the first Castlevania for the Game Boy; Edit: actually, Haunted Castle might be even worse). But as a Castlevania it is too streamlined.

Zelda 2 is really fun

Yes, it really doesn't deserve it's bad reputation. I can understand why a Zelda fan would hate it, and the overworld is pretty weak due to how locked down the progression is (my pet peeve with every Zelda game since Link's Awakening; that, and regular interruptions with shitty dialog or mini-games). The fighting is great, and dungeons are large, challenging mazes that are hard to navigate. Yet it doesn't go overboard like Crete in Battle of Olympus. So there is a lot of good in there, and it's unfortunate that the whole format of sidescrolling dungeon crawling hasn't found more imitators (I'd say it's different from Metroidvania because the maze factor in the dungeons is much higher, there's no progression-gating in the dungeons, and their layout is more compact and linear, with many dead-ends and routes that rarely circle back onto themselves).

 

[Nutmeg]

Problem with all Zelda games is everything they do other games do better. Top down action? Play Ys Origins. Side scrolling action? Play Rondo of Blood. 3D action? Play Devil May Cry. Puzzles? Play Eggerland. 3D Puzzles? Play Kula World.

What are you left with? "Adventure"? Like walking long distances to match items and talk to NPCs to trigger things? Yeah no thanks. I know some people on this forum especially love this shit but when you think about it its really not that interesting.

 

[Machocruz]

You can pick a single feature from any game and find other games that do it better. Super Mario 3 has better platforming than Rondo of Blood, now what? Dragon's Dogma has better spellcasting than Ys Origin, what are you left with? Better to bring up games that are holistically similar. E.g. some people think Okami was better at the LoZ formula than LoZ.

 

[Nutmeg]

Firstly, Mario 3 does not have better platforming than Rondo. Different platforming (inertial), but not better.

Second you need to compare moment to moment gameplay in broad strokes. There's a reason I divided things into action and puzzle instead of platforming and spell casting.

The point is moment to moment, Zeldas (and Okami for that matter), don't have anything going. All the other games you mentioned do. The only exceptions to this with Zelda are some of the minigames (and how much of the 10 or so hours it takes to run a Zelda are spent there?), which incidentally betrays the entire design of Zelda's moment to moment gameplay. That is, complete modality. Everything is a minigame "now you are solving a sokoban puzzle" or "now you are fighting 2 lizalfos" is no different to "now you are shooting baloons from a horse".

What makes Zelda Zelda is that all of these are linked together by "Adventure" i.e. walking simulation and conversation simulation. If you don't care much for this, then you are better served elsewhere for the other bits.

 

[Siobhan]

Side scrolling action? Play Rondo of Blood.

Firstly, Mario 3 does not have better platforming than Rondo. Different platforming (inertial), but not better.

I don't quite understand how you can subsume Zelda 2 and Rondo of Blood under one umbrella of side scrolling action but then separate the platforming of Rondo and Mario 3. Zelda 2's action plays very differently from Rondo due to limited attack range, faster movement, vastly increased mobility, smaller sprites allowing massive elevation differences, blocking, higher HP, invincibility frames, and a convenient heal spell. Players can excel at one game while sucking at the other. The difference between those two experiences is a lot larger than the common label of side scrolling action suggests.

That said, I agree that Zelda is a case of "jack of all trades, master of none". But that's also why most people like it, in contrast to the average Codexian, who tends to love games that do one or two things incredibly well even if everything else sucks (Arcanum, PST, VTMB, Morrowind, Kotor 2, Alpha Protocol, ... the list is long).

 

[Tehdagah]

Super Castlevania is millions times better than the three NES Castlevania

It is fairly contentious within the community. It has a lot of fans, but there's also many that would put it in the bottom tier (myself included). It has too many filler levels that don't stand out, the multidirectional whip and improved jump control makes it a much less methodical affair, the level design and enemy placement are no match for the player's vastly improved skill set, the final boss is a joke, there's too much wall meat everywhere, and difficulty is too low even on the second loop. I think it's a decent action game and not the worst among the classic Castlevanias (that would be the first Castlevania for the Game Boy; Edit: actually, Haunted Castle might be even worse). But as a Castlevania it is too streamlined.

The 3 NES Castlevania weren't methodical, they were filled with trial-and-error bullshit that only nostalgic NES fans* tolerate and will argue to death that dying and being forced to start the whole level from the beginning due to cheap enemy placement or bosses that aren't designated around the control's limitations is fine because you can memorize the bullshit. Meanwhile Castlevania IV does have some bone pillars that can be killed from lower grounds with the multidirectional whip and because of that "OMG THE WHIP IS OP" even if 95% of enemies in the game are able to counter it (skeletons throw bones, spiders spit webs, mermans spit water, medusa heads fly all over the screen, ghosts dance around the screen etc). The same nostalgic NES fans* usually argue that slide and charge buster in later Mega Man games are bad, because who cares about more complex mechanics and fairness, games should be stuck in the past forever and Mega Man is more fun when you die to a cheap boss that isn't designated around the slow controls.

*read the comment in the OP's video, it's filled with these people. "Bullshit and trial-and-error is ok because these were my favorite games! Fuck evolution!"

 

[Siobhan]

Are you incapable of making an argument or just too lazy? Calling things bullshit only conveys that you think they're bullshit, not why you think that. Whether nostalgia is involved is immaterial unless you show that there is no other plausible explanation; a -> b does not preclude c -> b. That the most commonly made arguments for/against X are weak does not mean that there are no good arguments for X. Calling things unfair without defining your notion of fairness is meaningless. Similarly for "trial-and-error". Why is trial-and-error bad? It's one of the most efficient and natural learning techniques ever. Why is memorization intrinsically bad?

I'm genuinely puzzled by this dichotomy: on the one hand you are sufficiently bothered by somebody's assessment of Super Castlevania to write a long reply, but on the other hand you aren't sufficiently bothered to actually phrase that reply in a manner that's likely to inform anybody's assessment. What's the point then? Venting? Over something so minor? Some kind of narcissistic need to share your sentiments with the world?

95% of enemies in the game are able to counter it (skeletons throw bones, spiders spit webs, mermans spit water, medusa heads fly all over the screen, ghosts dance around the screen etc)

All those enemies were already in the three classic Castlevanias, with the same patterns. That's exactly the problem: the player's skill set was increased without changing the rest of the formula. Since you mention Mega Man, Mega Man X overhauled the whole package, it would be incredibly hard to play Mega Man X with the abilities of classic Mega Man. Super Castlevania works just fine without multi-directional whip or increased mobility. It should be like a whip-only run of Castlevania 1, a marked increase in difficulty where you notice how much the subweapons factor into the level and boss design. But it simply isn't.

 

[Machocruz]

Firstly, Mario 3 does not have better platforming than Rondo. Different platforming (inertial), but not better.

No, better. More varied, more fluid, more agile, more responsive, more creative. The platforming in Rondo is simply average, nothing remarkable at all, nothing to offer anyone that can't be had elsewhere and better. Being different doesn't save it, as being different doesn't save Zelda 2 from being inferior in side-scrolling combat to Rondo, according to you. Which I wholeheartedly disagree with, for reasons Siobhan pointed out

Second you need to compare moment to moment gameplay in broad strokes. There's a reason I divided things into action and puzzle instead of platforming and spell casting.

The point is moment to moment, Zeldas (and Okami for that matter), don't have anything going.

All the other games you mentioned do. The only exceptions to this with Zelda are some of the minigames (and how much of the 10 or so hours it takes to run a Zelda are spent there?), which incidentally betrays the entire design of Zelda's moment to moment gameplay. That is, complete modality. Everything is a minigame "now you are solving a sokoban puzzle" or "now you are fighting 2 lizalfos" is no different to "now you are shooting baloons from a horse".

Ys and Rondo do? Those games are comprised of tons of trivial encounters, without any of the other elements LoZ offers. Now Volgar the Viking, that's a game that where nearly every moment is significant. Every enemy or hazard placed in that game is a viable threat to your progress. Still doesn't replace the LoZ experience. And fighting enemies is fighting enemies, like it is in any other game. It may be simple, which there is nothing wrong with, but it's a core feature, not a minigame.

What makes Zelda Zelda is that all of these are linked together by "Adventure" i.e. walking simulation and conversation simulation. If you don't care much for this, then you are better served elsewhere for the other bits.

As it turns out, Zelda fans do care for the whole package. Not "bits", which is an autistic way to judge any piece of design. They are not mechanicsfags attracted to one feature executed at the highest level. Ys Origin is not any kind of adequate replacement or upgrade for the Zelda feature-set, nor vice versa. Do we need to enumerate the ways they are not? Their developers are not even attempting to present the same kind of experience. Even less so Rondo of Blood, which is a merely a stage by stage combat gauntlet, essentially an arcade game, not a game whose legacy is both from the arcades and open world RPGs. Certainly not any of those puzzle games.

There is no walking simulation here. There is no attempt to replicate the experience of walking, no evidence the developers intended this. Are you being cheeky? Are you saying this because there isn't a trivial encounter every 5 steps like in the Ys games? What, if anything, is being simulated* is the hero fantasy journey, of which travel of some sort is always present.

*Well most accurately, from the horse's mouth, LoZ is a simulation of exploration in the Japanese countryside during youth.

 

[Nutmeg]

There has been a misunderstanding.

I think Zelda 2's combat minigame is fine. But the context (stages and encounters) aren't super developed, and it doesn't feature enough. Hence my statement that you are better served playing a dedicated 2D side scrolling action game like Rondo instead, if that is what you are after. However I can understand someone loving Zelda 2's combat enough to need to get their fill from Zelda 2, especially through no spell and low level challenge runs.

Now as to Ys being a wholesale replacement of Zelda, it isn't, I agree, but it is a replacement of the (topdown) combat.

As to the overarching structure of Zelda being different, no argument there either. My point is that this doesn't add anything to the moment to moment gameplay.

In fact, I'd argue it detracts because now instead of going through meticulously crafted challenge to challenge, you are instead interrupted to mash through some NPC dialogue, then spend half a minute riding a horse, then mash through some more dialogoue, then walk for a minute spamming the roll button cause there's nothing else to do, then stumble upon a heart container that makes the already trivial combat even more trivial. All of this adds nothing. Just wastes time and trivializes or outright breaks the minigames where any actual gameplay might have been found. I mean it's great when you're a kid and you're larping "oh boy it's like I'm on a real adventure!" but idk I've grown out of that.

Or have I? I happily larped for 50+ hours in BoTW.

Guilty pleasure. Nothing I would advertise as an interesting *game*.

 

[e-mailio estevez]

I am happy to see Zelda 2 get some love.

It's a perfect combination of NES RPG-lite elements, *good* and simplistic combat, satisfying challenge and exploration that makes easily one of favorite Zelda , favorite NES game and probably one of my all-time favorite games period.

I try to complete an Ironman Mode, No-Continue run every once in awhile. Not without cheesing, mind you, but that's all part of the fun. If things get hairy I'll run back to the start of a dungeon, and heal myself up using the free magic pots that you can find in the Ironknuckle statues. I'll also level up attack as much as I can for insurance before heading into Death Mountain- I do this by strategically waiting to pop the first and 2nd dungeon statues to get the most out of the free level-up. I stack the deck as much as I can short of grinding out levels because at any moment you can fall into a pit and lose a life.

Last time I did one of these I actually lost a life after being buried by falling blocks in the 2nd dungeon... I was buried too deep to jump out or escape. Single blocks just kept dropping on me until Link was basically a crushed heap. Name another Zelda game where something like that can even happen.

The way I play Zelda 2 is completely different now than when I was a kid- from mastery of the combat system, knowledge of how to exploit game mechanics to knowing where secrets are and the best routes to take. The game has depth- I don't think mastery of any other Zelda is quite so satisfying from a strict gameplay perspective outside of possibly the first game.

 

[JDR13]

I agree Zelda 2 was good for its time, but I don't think it's aged well. I tried replaying it a few years ago and I was like "Wtf??"

I don't think any of the older Zelda games aged very well though to be honest. Ocarina of Time and MM are particulaly bad in that aspect.

 

[Machocruz]

I think Zelda 2's combat minigame is fine. But the context (stages and encounters) aren't super developed, and it doesn't feature enough. Hence my statement that you are better served playing a dedicated 2D side scrolling action game like Rondo instead, if that is what you are after. However I can understand someone loving Zelda 2's combat enough to need to get their fill from Zelda 2, especially through no spell and low level challenge runs.

Exactly why I said that if only someone took the combat from it and built a better game around it. It deserves to be seen again. As it stands, if I want that combat, I have to play that game. Overall I prefer Castlevania series (in my top 3 series), for different reasons.

In fact, I'd argue it detracts because now instead of going through meticulously crafted challenge to challenge, you are instead interrupted to mash through some NPC dialogue, then spend half a minute riding a horse, then mash through some more dialogoue, then walk for a minute spamming the roll button cause there's nothing else to do, then stumble upon a heart container that makes the already trivial combat even more trivial. All of this adds nothing. Just wastes time and trivializes or outright breaks the minigames where any actual gameplay might have been found. I mean it's great when you're a kid and you're larping "oh boy it's like I'm on a real adventure!" but idk I've grown out of that.

I agree with some of this, primarily when it comes to the 3D games. They don't feel as snappy as the 2D games, more bloated. I don't care for the silly NPCs and their conversations, and never have. It's not what I wanted the original game to evolve into. LoZ1 was a world of desolation. Gloomy dungeons with ominous music. A scant population of cryptic NPCs who may or not be a help to you. You're on your own. LoZ2 maintained this direction to an extent, but already the NPC shit started. Then with AttLP we have pink haired Link in a brightly colored world of sillier/cuter/funnier NPCs. I like the game, it deserves it's classic status, but I disagree with many of Nintendo's decisions in that game, and it's where they solidified the formula that carried into subsequent games. The NPC conversations got longer too. The idea of dungeons as puzzle palaces firmly dominated their design now. I found other games that delivered the kind of tone that I preferred, more convincing "simulations"

But sometimes I do want something that's charming and colorful, cute even. Innocent. Polished. Nintendo are expert at that.