Lots of games that were old and legendary at the time are now considered to have aged either poorly or rather well. To the games that have aged well would mean that they could still be played for generations whereas for those that haven't aged can't be played or recommended to modern gamers.
I just beated the original Zelda with a guide for three reasons. The first reason was that the game's map isn't visually clear and while I can understand that this game had technical limitations and such, after playing Phantom Hourglass and other zelda games after this one, it felt to me like a step backwards. Another reason I have an issue with this one is how difficult it is to deal with enemies here. Forget defeating them because at some point, they will respawn forcing you to defeat them to get access again. The last reason is that the game forces you to get an item that for the most part won't be used in that dungeon but will assist you in the other one. Like the bow in the first level. I didn't know I have to get the bow in the first level and when I went to level 6 with arrows, I realized that I had to get the bow to use the arrows in order to defeat the boss and that frustrated me a LOT!
So on one hand, I can say that the game has aged and it has done what Miyamoto had originally intended to do with it. But on the other hand, this can't be played by many due to many Zelda games that were better than this. But gamers need to understand that without the original, the sequels can't be made. The result of Zelda 1 and 2 is what made Link to the past happen. So if someone were to say the game hasn't aged, then it would mean that the game isn't worth playing to today's standards. That's like saying that now having Starfox 64 3D, Star Fox 64 isn't worth it.
So what I'm trying to say here is this..... will old game be forgotten for the new or will it be something to be considered to be moved into a museum or something?
I prefer the simplicity of the old games. I am so bored with having story in Zelda games right now. I don't want to have to go through a lengthy playable intro scene before I can get to the action. A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening had the perfect blend of action and storyline, but I'm willing to extend to Ocarina of Time levels of action and storyline too. Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess just bored me.
Edgey, Gumshoe, Godot, Sissel, Larry, then Mia, Franziska, Maggie, Kay and Lynne.
I'm throwing my money at the screen but nothing happens!
The original Legend of Zelda is so easy that I've completed a No-Sword Run of it recently. Back in the day I would beat the game in just one setting without ever turning off the NES. Good times. It's unfortunate that modern day gamers aren't able to enjoy and appreciate the classics.
If you grew up playing A Link to the Past, I think you can still appreciate the original Zelda. (I did. I was playing ALttP in 1993, didn't have an NES so I didn't play the original myself until the early 2000s)
Now, Ocarina of Time, I think that's where you draw the line.
It'll be tough a play a game when you're used to a flying ball spoiling everything.
And the death counter was a way the designers were able to add replay value to the game.
Though I still don't know how one would find level 6 in the second quest without help. I don't think the game ever even hinted you could use that item in that way.
Lots of games that were old and legendary at the time are now considered to have aged either poorly or rather well. To the games that have aged well would mean that they could still be played for generations whereas for those that haven't aged can't be played or recommended to modern gamers.
I just beated the original Zelda with a guide for three reasons. The first reason was that the game's map isn't visually clear and while I can understand that this game had technical limitations and such, after playing Phantom Hourglass and other zelda games after this one, it felt to me like a step backwards. Another reason I have an issue with this one is how difficult it is to deal with enemies here. Forget defeating them because at some point, they will respawn forcing you to defeat them to get access again. The last reason is that the game forces you to get an item that for the most part won't be used in that dungeon but will assist you in the other one. Like the bow in the first level. I didn't know I have to get the bow in the first level and when I went to level 6 with arrows, I realized that I had to get the bow to use the arrows in order to defeat the boss and that frustrated me a LOT!
So on one hand, I can say that the game has aged and it has done what Miyamoto had originally intended to do with it. But on the other hand, this can't be played by many due to many Zelda games that were better than this. But gamers need to understand that without the original, the sequels can't be made. The result of Zelda 1 and 2 is what made Link to the past happen. So if someone were to say the game hasn't aged, then it would mean that the game isn't worth playing to today's standards. That's like saying that now having Starfox 64 3D, Star Fox 64 isn't worth it.
So what I'm trying to say here is this..... will old game be forgotten for the new or will it be something to be considered to be moved into a museum or something?
Individual mileage will vary.
I just played and beat Zelda for the first time last week. I did not have any of the problems you did. Not that I found everything in the game, but everything I did find, I found myself. I spent 6 hours in Ganons dungeon and finally resorted to a guide to find my way through. I am not an excellent gamer and consider myself lower end of intermediate.
The game is difficult, and there are limitations in the controls from the time. I am very glad games are no longer made like this, but there's a lot there that I still wish was present in modern games. I did not find the game obtuse at all, and think it's notorious reputation in that department is highly exaggerated.
As a zelda fan I was able to find a lot of solutions and secrets. Finding dungeon 7 just on a hunch was great. I saw the empty pond and figured it was a fairy dwelling, remembering Ocarina of time could unlock fairies with the Ocarina, I played the whistle and voila, the pond drained and dungeon 7 appeared. I never even imagined something like that could happen in such an old game.
Zelda has aged very well, while it has awful controls, it teaches the player on the go with actual gameplay, and has a very rewarding curve. While good storytelling and game design has taught us it takes 3 clues for every hook, everything in Zelda has a hint so it's not just, good luck without a guide like the Internet meme says.
I wish you had a better time with it, but I would gladly recommend it to players with confidence and not feel the need to preface it with any concerns or a you have to over look this just to try it attitude.
I think this concept of "aging" is childish. Have you ever heard anybody complaining that Shakespeare or Dante are too old?
Yes. While those are two of the premiere creations in their respective field, art does age. Themes of the time become antiquated, and the use of the medium wears thin showing its infancy. The work you pointed out just so happens to be above the level of its contemporaries and has universal themes that lie deeper than a generational zeitgeist. How has rent or cats aged? (They were phenomena in theater around the time of retro games.)
Gamers also need to understand that to even come close to fully appreciating something like the original LOZ, you HAD to of played it during it's debut back in the 80's when it was cutting edge....It was amazing for it's time, incredibly innovative, it was the BIRTH of a brand new soon to be major successful franchise.
If one grew up playing the later 2D entries(ALTTP, Minish cap ect) and so fourth that person wouldn't be able to appreciate the original....hardly, if that. it would be taking a step back in game design and visuals. the sequels gradually improved on everything.
I think the original has aged wonderfully, although I always found it a little frustrating that there's no clear indication where you should lay bombs, and the dungeons started to get a little confusing due to visuals/design constraints, where rooms would start to look too familiar from the next. Gannons big grey castle is the perfect example.
Two major pluses to the original LOZ and Zelda II was that they were very challenging....unlike the majority of sequels. My problem with the latter is that towards the end of the sequels you're nearly an invincible power house, carelessly plowing through enemies because you've stocked up on a butt load of heart containers. it wasn't like this in Zelda or Zelda II, you were constantly on your toes from beginning to end and carefully making your next move, you couldn't afford to take a hit.
The newer Zelda's aren't challenging when it comes to battling enemies and bosses....the challenge lies in figuring out the puzzles. A game over literally means nothing in Zelda(same could be said for the NSMB series)...as there are no consequences. so what if you die in a dungeon, you start right back at the main entrance with everything you already achieved in said dungeon INTACT....you'll get back to where you need to be in a matter of seconds.
This is why whenever I play a new Zelda game I skip on getting the Heart containers.
This is a huge punishment if you are someone like me. My time is precious, I don't have much of it, don't make me redo the boring parts of games.
Instead of complaining a game hasn't aged well, maybe you should consider that you haven't aged enough as a gamer to fully appreciate it.
If you hand a spoiled kid a cookie he doesn't appreciate it, but give it to a kid who mostly eats bread and water he will love it to (8) bits.
I've had much more problems with new games that feature extreme loading times and bugs than a confusing map and respawning enemies in a 25+ year old game.
For me, games that came out before my time have a hard time holding my attention for long. I grew up in the SNES era so NES games (with the exception of Megaman) seem plain, shallow, and overall just not that interesting or engaging. Same goes with a lot of Game Boy games, unfortunately
Sacred Forest or whatever it was called, second run, in Twilight Princess.
Skull Kid's minions that just keep respawning. Easily defeated with a single spin attack as the wolf.
Really, Nintendo? Did they really add anything of value to the game? Did they add to the enjoyment, to the challenge?
Or were they just a **** PIT* to the player trying to deal with the REAL challenging of solving the maze?
(one of the most challenging puzzles I solved in TP was probably one that, unlike the puzzles in the early games, WASN'T EVEN MEANT TO be challenging: the fishing wasn't really explained in the game, certainly not as well as the manual. And you had to do it at the beginning of the game. So I got stuck for a few hours.
I actually spent that time trying to trick the cat's AI into making it go home, which is what I thought you had to do.)
But a yellow rupee is worth 10 rupees, isn't it?
So I guess after making the games for 20 years, they still weren't perfect...
And I like how in the early Zeldas, you could probably beat some of the bosses in the time it would take to watch just a cutscene in the later games.
Gamers also need to understand that to even come close to fully appreciating something like the original LOZ, you HAD to of played it during it's debut back in the 80's when it was cutting edge....It was amazing for it's time, incredibly innovative, it was the BIRTH of a brand new soon to be major successful franchise.
If one grew up playing the later 2D entries(ALTTP, Minish cap ect) and so fourth that person wouldn't be able to appreciate the original....hardly, if that. it would be taking a step back in game design and visuals. the sequels gradually improved on everything.
I think the original has aged wonderfully, although I always found it a little frustrating that there's no clear indication where you should lay bombs, and the dungeons started to get a little confusing due to visuals/design constraints, where rooms would start to look too familiar from the next. Gannons big grey castle is the perfect example.
Two major pluses to the original LOZ and Zelda II was that they were very challenging....unlike the majority of sequels. My problem with the latter is that towards the end of the sequels you're nearly an invincible power house, carelessly plowing through enemies because you've stocked up on a butt load of heart containers. it wasn't like this in Zelda or Zelda II, you were constantly on your toes from beginning to end and carefully making your next move, you couldn't afford to take a hit.
The newer Zelda's aren't challenging when it comes to battling enemies and bosses....the challenge lies in figuring out the puzzles. A game over literally means nothing in Zelda(same could be said for the NSMB series)...as there are no consequences. so what if you die in a dungeon, you start right back at the main entrance with everything you already achieved in said dungeon INTACT....you'll get back to where you need to be in a matter of seconds.
This is why whenever I play a new Zelda game I skip on getting the Heart containers.
This is a huge punishment if you are someone like me. My time is precious, I don't have much of it, don't make me redo the boring parts of games.
I'm in the same boat. I hate being punished in a GAME just so I can brag about it online to people who don't even care. Life punishes me enough . I just think every game should have a difficulty slider, that way everyone can be happy. And older Zeldas are a bad example of good challenge IMO. The majority of my deaths in the original Zelda stemmed from clunky controls.
Instead of complaining a game hasn't aged well, maybe you should consider that you haven't aged enough as a gamer to fully appreciate it.
Hmm. An old game is what it has been, it's just how it is being perceived that has changed. Dancing bears are still dancing bears. They may dance, sure, but once you see a human dancing, you'll see how clumsy the bear was. (Or maybe now we're the ones dancing the bear?) I wouldn't care to use Visicalc since there's OpenOffice Calc I can use.
I'd take an issue with the way you phrased that ("aged enough"), if I didn't think I either misunderstood it or you unintentionally said that. I don't see why it wouldn't be just as fine for people not to take games as a casual hobby without becoming an aficionado or a connoisseur. It's like playing football only with the goal of getting to the Premier League would be OK, but playing it for fun with pick-up teams with others at the neighborhood would not.
People danced before Bears danced, so that doesn't make much sense. And if a bear ever decides to dance by it's own will, I'd love to watch that more than I like seeing people dance.
Using Visicalc now is probably less easy to do than using OpenOffice, just because your PC isn't made for it anymore. Otherwise if I just had to do some spreadsheeting and didn't absolute need any advanced features not found in it I wouldn't really care if I had to use Visical (seriously though, are you still using OpenOffice? It's 2015, get LibreOffice already. ).
I should've phrased that sentence completely different. I meant that if you first started playing (football) games with FIFA 15 you might expect and want every other game to have the same features and dislike games that don't. But if play games for longer you might learn to enjoy games without such judgment and see that other and older football games are still as enjoyable as FIFA 15 as long you don't come in expecting things all the time.
A lot of the people who are overly critical of retro games have a hard time appreciating them for the merits they showed upon inital release. If you can't relate to that time period and what made a game special vice comparing it to everything that came afterwards, your going to have a negative outlook.
I too wished that I could enjoy the original but sadly....I can't even if I wanted to. But mind you, its not the game's fault but rather my fault for not being able to accept it now.
The same can be said for Zelda 2 although that game is a mix bag of good or bad. I don't want to say how its aged and all because a game's a game. Its like saying you're too old to play snakes and ladders with your friends when in reality, its just a game of luck like every other board game that uses luck as means of winning.
I should've phrased that sentence completely different. I meant that if you first started playing (football) games with FIFA 15 you might expect and want every other game to have the same features and dislike games that don't. But if play games for longer you might learn to enjoy games without such judgment and see that other and older football games are still as enjoyable as FIFA 15 as long you don't come in expecting things all the time.
That's fairly obvious, but those who have played the newer games and have experienced all the advancements taken shouldn't be shunned for not liking the past games. After all, since when have people wanted things to be worse than they currently are? For example, I wouldn't change my Google Chrome to Netscape, although I can still appreciate the advancements Netscape made in its time, laying the groundwork and all that.
Currently on the plate:
Mount and Blade: Warband – Napoleonic Wars
Chivalry
Super Mario 3D World – Finishing the last few levels.
Mario Kart 8
For the record, the first time I played the first Legend of Zelda (or any NES game) was in 2011, when I got it from the 3DS Ambassador Program. I loved it and beat it without a guide, without using restore points, got nearly every heart piece, and even made my own little map! It challenged me like no other Zelda title did.
Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to dislike old games (everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you obviously can't say that anyone's opinion is untrue), but I do think that some gamers set their standards pretty high. I feel like, if this game had been someone's first game, they would be more likely to love it, whereas those who have been used to every adventure game having an in-game story, proper map, and some sort of hint on where the dungeons are (just a few examples), they'll feel like the game lacks features. In my own opinion, the lack of a feature is just as interesting as the addition of a feature, because it tests your ability to cope without it.
When I look forward to games, I primarily want to see something new, and I don't necessarily expect additional features, or features that were in the last title. Well, honestly, I do a little bit, because it's fun to talk about features you enjoyed in previous games that you'd like to see a return, but it's never a deal-breaker for me.
Forums
Topic: The struggle of old games aging
Posts 1 to 20 of 21
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.