By Today's Standards...
3/14/13 3:30pm
tl;dr
Is it really fair to compare old games to new games?
Yes.
As the next part in my Everything I Own Challenge I decided to pick up the first The Legend of Zelda game, since the Super Mario Land games put me in a classic mood and I haven't ever gotten beyond the first few screens of this game. Let me just say, this game is pretty awful. It's not even the good kind of awful where everything is downright bad, nope. The Legend of Zelda is the terrible kind of awful where it could have been really good if only one of the negative aspects had simply been smoothed out.
More about that when I get to the review, though (I still have to complete the last four dungeons and the Second Quest before this game is finished). This post is less about the game, and more about something I kept seeing over and over while searching for people who shared my demonic opinion of the game. Every forum I visited, every conversation I read, there were more people bawling about how it's not fair to compare a game from the 80's to anything even remotely modern or to hold it to the same standards you hold other games. The technology simply wasn't good enough yet to make those games, so it isn't fair. It isn't! It isn't!
Give me a break. I've been called a many supposedly scornful things, and "Nostalgia Fag" is one of the most frequent. But even I, in all of my nostalgic fagginess, understand that this argument is a load of bull. There is literally no reason why you can't compare modern games and classic games on the same standard scale, especially when the core for that scale is personal entertainment. There are plenty of old games that stand up beautifully still, and there are plenty of new games that blow. The reverse of that is true, as well, and it isn't because the technology was oh-so-limited for those old games. I just got through praising the hell out of both Super Mario Land titles, and while I didn't outright say "These games are miles better than New! Super Mario Bros. Wii", they are. That game sucks.
Well, the first The Legend of Zelda is awful, too. And it definitely isn't because of technological limitations. It's because of poor design decisions.
Let's look at other mediums for a second. Do we say that novels written decades ago cannot stand on the same scale as novels written today? Well I hope not, because that's simply ludicrous. Do we say that about music? No. Do we say that about movies? Well... yeah, but we really shouldn't. The era and limitations of that era should not impact your opinion of the final product. The only two questions you should ask yourself about a piece of media are: "Did you like it?" and "How come?"
That's all there is to it. I don't care if the game was revolutionary for its time, because three years later it was an outdone train wreck. I can definitely respect what it did for its franchise, for its company, and for its industry without holding it up as the masterpiece that it isn't. And that's the thing. A lot of people want to conflate the legacy of the work with the quality of the work. Well, that's simply wrong. When I ask somebody whether a game is good or not, I don't want to hear the words "Not by today's standards" or "It was good for its time." That doesn't matter to me, and that doesn't matter to the work. I want to hear "Yes" or "No".
History determines the worth of all things. If your thing can only be described as "good" within the context of a brief period of years as opposed to the whole of everything you have ever experienced, it isn't worth the praise you want to give it.
Nathan DiYorio is a floundering self-published author who fails to make a living by operating a blog of many opinions where he can often be found rambling about Hammer Bros., Marvel comics, and other such uninteresting things. He also sometimes transcribes public domain articles and stories for the masses to read over at this pathetic excuse for an archive.
» Tagged In: #Classic, #new, #old, #rant, #video games
More wicked cool stories and video from around the web. Got tips for us? Tips@ScrewAttack.com
g1 DISCUSSIONS
GeoPOI
I'm sorry, I don't really see an argument here. You talk about games from this time period and then, you mention how "literature has changed," you alluded to a review... but there is no true review of the game; all that's said is "it's terrible."
Nathan DiYorio
"More about that when I get to the review, though (I still have to complete the last four dungeons and the Second Quest before this game is finished)."
The review is coming. Try to read a little more carefully.
GeoPOI
I chose to read past that. In only partially reading this, my review of this post is a 6/11
ficoos
I never owned an NES until this year and I played it for the first time so I don't gave nostalgia for the NES. It has some unfair "NES hard" kind parts to it. But I think it is still well designed. Some sat that being thrown in with no idea what to do is bad design. But the whole game is about the feeling of discovery. And after wondering for like 30 minutes dying and not knowing where to go or what to do I found the first dungeon. It felt good. Miyamoto said that he made this game to evoke the feelings he had exploring the woods next to his house. This is what the game is about. Exploring, getting lost, not knowing where to go. Having a world with strange unexplained rules.
It has it's flaws but I think it is a very well designed game even by today standards.
Elmo 3000
I remember an old series of mine where I took a popular series and sorted then into a 'Famous Five'. The Perfect One, The Close Contender, The 'Hit Or Miss' One, The Underrated One, and The One To Avoid. When I came around to Zelda, I didn't dislike the first game, but I had to put something as 'The One To Avoid', and Zelda II would've been too cliched, so I went for it. Luckily, ScrewAttack is full of people who are happy to respectfully disagree, but boy oh boy did I feel like I was holding a minority opinion, so I'm very relieved to see that someone else thinks it doesn't stand the test of time. I'm very much looking forward to your full review of it!
Until then, this was a great blog too. I play a whole variety of games and whether they're Genesis, N64 or PS2, I just look at whether they're fun. Admittedly I find it weird when someone criticises, say, Final Fantasy VII's graphics because they're not that good nowadays, but everything apart from graphics should still be held accountable to the unchanging standards of 'fun'.
So, um, yeah! Good blog!
blackmaniac
I for one don't like that either. But instead of saying "you can't compare those" I rather say wether or not the game has aged well. And I can see why you don't like the first Zelda that much, because I partially agree on that one: It hasn't aged too well. Sure, some classics are milestones that revolutionized the genre, but that does not save them from having outdated mechanics. While the original introduced us to the staples of the series, the later entries updated and perfected those staples. A link to the past is so much better than the original in almost every regard. Better graphics (obviously), better story, better gameplay, better controls, better overworld, better dungeon design and so on. I also don't like arguments like "well, that's due to the technical limitations." A good game works within its limitations. One of my main gripes with the original is the level design. Especially later dungeons just get confusing as shit, because it overuses those underground passages, especially the last dungeon. They warp you all over the goddamn place so much that I couldn't tell if I was actually getting closer to ganon or not. And yes, going back to the entrance every time you die doesn't help.
All it all: I do agree with you: You can compare old games to new games. But I don'T completely dismiss the age of games. The original Zelda was the shit back in the days, it's just that it hasn't aged too well, because we now know how many design choices could've been better.
PineyCreek
In terms of graphics, no. In terms of fun, subjectively with each game and its own merits regardless of franchise or platform, sure. I still love my old NES games.
Rython
I played the NES Legend of Zelda recently, and I must admit that I didn't find anything bad about the game, at all.
And as far as Classic vs. Modern, I still say that games like Terranigma and Super Metroid still hold their ground in both gameplay and graphics. They are just great looking games, even by today's standards, in my opinion.
JxL
Legend of Zelda is awful? You are welcome to your own opinion but if you would have played it back in '87 it would have blown your mind. I played through it a few weeks ago and got the same enjoyment. Just because its cryptic and doesn't have an easy mode doesn't make it awful. Back then we didn't let our games play themselves...sheesh...kids today...GET OFF MY LAWN!!
8thRann
different generations, different opinions. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it. Zelda was and is a good game. This whole compare old to new thing is an endless argument so I won't even bother to touch the subject. Once again I respect your opinion tho, but highly disagree.