Post by fuckdavidcage on Jul 26, 2019 9:47:11 GMT -5
My favorite retro system is the NES, and this guy who supposedly knows all about good and bad design completely dismisses it by the standards of modern systems.
His complaints: Weak graphics and sprite flicker, even though there were hardware limitations.
Challenge and lives exist, rather than making everything easy, even though many of the games were short and creative enough that restarting was not too much of an issue, and it is fun to beat a hard challenge.
He changed the name of the video from NES games to some NES games, but only cites one example of a game he likes. He cheated his way through it.
Post by ommadawnyawn2 on Jul 26, 2019 10:55:07 GMT -5
He made mostly fair points I think (flicker (and slowdown) is obvious but it makes sense from a modern perspective and there are NES games that take hardware limitations into account better than others or are better coded to avoid them, so at some point in the NES's rather long lifespan I think you should expect them to have started dealing with it).
I just take issue with language like "artificial difficulty" and "outdated" to make his opinion seem more objective. Mixing in MD and SNES games (Sonic and Mario All-Stars) also makes it a bit unclear exactly what he's talking about at points, but overall it was alright.
It is clear that new games tend to neglect testing a player's endurance or patience even when retro-inspired and most seem to prefer to have it this way.
I would hardly call NES games "hard." But with such an overwhelming selection of games available in this day and age, there's no incentive to invest and learn each gameplay style and mechanic of all the classics. Especially for kids who are the type to check their facebook updates every 5 minutes.
That was seriously one of the stupidest videos I have ever seen in my entire life and could only get through a few minutes. Complaining that arcade ports are hard??? THEY'RE ARCADE PORTS! Literally the entire point is trying to replicate the exact experience at home as closely as possible. The exactness elements doesn't necessary apply to NES games partly because of Nintendo policies requiring some amount of new content, but no one came into these things looking for breezy time. Now, some popular ports like Ghosts n Goblins are a mess on technical level which makes them harder than they need be, but the idea that arcade ports are the "NES at is worst" was so exasperating I literally got a headache.
Post by ommadawnyawn2 on Jul 26, 2019 13:46:07 GMT -5
I think a more fair assessment would bring up how modified ports for console/home users pretty much started on the NES, with Bionic Commando, Rygar, Strider and such games which were deeper experiences. Jackal and others were also rebalanced on it.
Sounding like someone who doesn't or can't put it in historical perspective. It was the era we were moving on from endless score-chasing games to games with an actual narrative and ending.
"weak graphics and sprite flicker" What the hell do you expect, for human society to have just technologically jumped from Pong to PS4 in one step?
When you often have the memory for maybe 30 minutes to an hour's worth of content typically, you want to challenge players to really learn the game. (but however most shovelware games miss the mark and just make it hard for being hard: "good" challenge is making the player feel like they had a shot but they need to learn better, "bad" challenge is just plain unfair like poor/unresponsive controls, bad hit detection, unclear visuals (looking at you NES games that demand pixel-perfect jumping with faux-3D platforms) or game objectives, etc.)
But arcade ports being hard? Weren't console ports often diluted into a fairer challenge than the arcade originals. Arcade games were hard because they were meant to take your money. Fine, compare it a "freemium" game since that's basically the same as most of them.
Post by psygnosis8 on Jul 29, 2019 23:41:06 GMT -5
If it’s hard get gud.
Who is this guy anyway? What gives him the credibility to be making criticism on game design from before he was born? There are so many inane, inaccurate and ignorant statements in that video that it’s baffling. He talks about cheat bugs being necessary for debugging, stating that if the devs couldn’t do it, how could “normal players?” Bitch, please. Billy Mitchell wasn’t debugging Gradius. It was probably some unpaid intern working 100 hours a week. And even if that wasn’t the case, why would assume testers are some sort of gaming savants.
I think the only examples of games from that are just too obfusticated for me now are first person dungeon crawlers. I really like some of them, but anything that requires me to get out graph paper at age 40 is gonna be a no go. Auto mapping is essential, and there are games in this genre from prior eras that still play well. I love Elvira 2 on the Amiga, but it did become too much for me. It’s awesome, and every scene is unique so you don’t get lost so easily (though the caverns under the church are a black onyx-is mess). The problem is the lack of guidance, as well as the ability to perma-fuck yourself if you make offensive comments to a character.
What gives him the credibility to be making criticism on game design from before he was born?
Why would him being born earlier give him any more or less credibility?
That said, even taking hardware limitations into account, some NES were poorly optimised, and there are plenty that were shoddily made, even for their time. Likewise, plenty of NES are difficult because they are designed poorly and to pad out the playing time, not because they were supposed to be all that challenging in the first place.
I watched more of it, and it's not age that's the problem. It's a very dishonest video that misrepresents some games and makes statements that are plainly wrong. For example he calls the physics in Castlevania "wrong". It's one thing to not like the knockback, but it's a deliberate choice. The video is just pure trolling.