surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
You may be able to do more in Zelda than games today (although I don't agreee with that) but all the stuff you can do feels very clunky and unrefined compared to today's games.
IMO, the series didn't really get good (by modern standards) until A Link to the Past. Now, THERE's a game that could put most modern ones to shame.
Really? I'll have to keep a look out for Love, because if it's a game that's as dumb as its developer, then it will be a game that should be avoided at all costs.
@xenoslave42
Agreed, while I have not been gaming for 20 years, I like games from back then as much as I do now, while I am a little biased to the 90's because that's when jrpgs ruled the world, there are only few modern jrpgs that are able to match them.
But as a whole, just play games and enjoy them.
Agreed, while I have not been gaming for 20 years, I like games from back then as much as I do now, while I am a little biased to the 90's because that's when jrpgs ruled the world, there are only few modern jrpgs that are able to match them.
But as a whole, just play games and enjoy them.
If you read the article it doesn't sound like hes necessarily ragging on modern games or saying that they're not fun. The article is mainly about emergent narrative, and how our individual gamer stories may be more, or less important than the story crafted by developers. I mean, he is absolutely correct that compared to modern games the original zelda had the ability to allow gamers to create a story they owned rather than one forced upon them. Whether that was a "good" story is, well, up to the player.
Gaming really hasn't been good since Tennis for Two.
And even that was just a blatant rip off of OXO...
And even that was just a blatant rip off of OXO...
Zelda might not have been the best example, but the issue with scripted and restrictive games is that, while they may be fun, the fun doesn't last very long once you expend the content the developer has prepared for you. Whether that takes a dozen or a hundred hours is another matter.
I really hate pretty much everything you write Jim.
"almost always an indie one -- declare that the state of modern games is miserable and depressing."
Eskil never said modern games were miserable or that they weren't fun and I think that you are grossly overstating it. He is talking about games from a design perspective and your response to that is "PFFT SO WHAT, I LIKE THEM THEY ARE FUN TO ME" Why so you even write game articles? If you refuse to look at games any deeper then that, why do you write articles for a gaming site. Almost everything you write is just your opinion stretched into an article.
Also what is with your vendetta against indie developers? This probably has something to with the fact that there is an atmosphere amongst groups of games, especially xbox360 and console gamers in general(to a lesser extent) that indie developers are all stuck up artsy snobs who think that "games are for children, we make art" that isn't the case at all. Indie developers are just game developers with no funding from a big company, most of them just want to make fun games and put their ideas to code. They have it hard enough as it is. Why do you target indie devs so much.
I had to get that off my mind.
"almost always an indie one -- declare that the state of modern games is miserable and depressing."
Eskil never said modern games were miserable or that they weren't fun and I think that you are grossly overstating it. He is talking about games from a design perspective and your response to that is "PFFT SO WHAT, I LIKE THEM THEY ARE FUN TO ME" Why so you even write game articles? If you refuse to look at games any deeper then that, why do you write articles for a gaming site. Almost everything you write is just your opinion stretched into an article.
Also what is with your vendetta against indie developers? This probably has something to with the fact that there is an atmosphere amongst groups of games, especially xbox360 and console gamers in general(to a lesser extent) that indie developers are all stuck up artsy snobs who think that "games are for children, we make art" that isn't the case at all. Indie developers are just game developers with no funding from a big company, most of them just want to make fun games and put their ideas to code. They have it hard enough as it is. Why do you target indie devs so much.
I had to get that off my mind.
Eskil says a lot without thinking. If he wanted to make a point that game design has changed since we made Zelda, I'd certainly agree with him. But to say that current games, on the whole, are depressing, is an unintelligent statement. A simple to look to popular and current games: WoW, Pokemon, Minecraft, Dragon Age, Red Dead Redemption, and you can see that games are moving to places that Zelda couldn't dream of.
"I really hate pretty much everything you write Jim. "
It's a shame you had a lot more to say after this, because I did not read it. When you start a post with that, you've pretty much told me you have nothing worth reading.
Ah well, better luck next time.
It's a shame you had a lot more to say after this, because I did not read it. When you start a post with that, you've pretty much told me you have nothing worth reading.
Ah well, better luck next time.
I understand that guy's point, and i more or less agree on his analogy of brute-forcing a rollercoaster. I'm still enjoying most games nowadays, but i've felt that scripted-forced feel of most games.
I think some people feel this way because we're too used to play games, and we mostly can see through the strings of the gameplay and story; thus subtly removing some of the surprises and excitement from it.
That didn't happen when we were playing our first games, when everything was new and every adventure was 100% surprises and unexpected stuff. And if you play older games today, the same fact that we've grown accustomed to nowadays games; plus the unrefinement of the old, makes them more surprising and "strange", creating experiences that collide with our usual perception of games.
at least that's what happens to me. =)
I think some people feel this way because we're too used to play games, and we mostly can see through the strings of the gameplay and story; thus subtly removing some of the surprises and excitement from it.
That didn't happen when we were playing our first games, when everything was new and every adventure was 100% surprises and unexpected stuff. And if you play older games today, the same fact that we've grown accustomed to nowadays games; plus the unrefinement of the old, makes them more surprising and "strange", creating experiences that collide with our usual perception of games.
at least that's what happens to me. =)
This man is fucking retarded and has full-on Nostalgia goggles.
The original Zelda, by today's standards, is shit. So's Metroid, while we're at it. Both of those series didn't get it right 'til the SNES. Yeah, Mario got it right in his first go on the NES, but a lot of other games did not.
@Sukor
Take your head out of your ass. Enkil called today's games "depressing". And how the hell can you call out the Xbox for being down on Indie developers with the XBLIG service? Does ignorance follow in every step you make or did you have to work to be this retarded?
Go away.
The original Zelda, by today's standards, is shit. So's Metroid, while we're at it. Both of those series didn't get it right 'til the SNES. Yeah, Mario got it right in his first go on the NES, but a lot of other games did not.
@Sukor
Take your head out of your ass. Enkil called today's games "depressing". And how the hell can you call out the Xbox for being down on Indie developers with the XBLIG service? Does ignorance follow in every step you make or did you have to work to be this retarded?
Go away.
At worst, you can do exactly as much, but much smoother today, which is mostly a failure of imagination on the modern developer's part.
Though I disagree even with that. I can talk to people in modern games. I couldn't talk to people in Zelda. Text played on the screen when I entered rooms.
Usually I'm jumping to indie dev's defense when they attack big budget games, but this is too much even for me.
Though I disagree even with that. I can talk to people in modern games. I couldn't talk to people in Zelda. Text played on the screen when I entered rooms.
Usually I'm jumping to indie dev's defense when they attack big budget games, but this is too much even for me.
For all of the technical limitations of the time, the original Zelda is pretty impressive. I still love it, but I'm glad most games are more intuitive these days. Very easy to not have damn clue in that game. Still, it would be interesting to hear Eskil back up that claim in a longer piece.
I understand what he's saying, honestly. It does feel like there's some games that get by with very little content. He's not saying they're not fun, just that they're not as open.
"Love" is officially on my radar. To hear a current game developer speak common sense these days is a rarity. So many are wound up on their genius (read:sub-par) narratives* they forget that the best ones come from the unique stories that each player experiences. Games like the original Zelda have such open systems and so many ways to play that everyone will have a different story, like how they managed to beat a room of Darknuts with the wooden sword or blew 4 of them away with a single bomb. You don't get that with the hand-holding narratives of most modern games.
Assuming Steenberg isn't just talking hypothetical, this game could be something special.
*Narrative refers to any set path/play by the developer, whether it's story or not (though story-heavy games are usually very set in hand-holding). "Should I use the Frog Suit?" in SMB3 is open narrative, player-controlled narrative. "You must use the Cloud Suit" in Super Mario Galaxy 2 is hand-held narrative, developer-controlled narrative.
Assuming Steenberg isn't just talking hypothetical, this game could be something special.
*Narrative refers to any set path/play by the developer, whether it's story or not (though story-heavy games are usually very set in hand-holding). "Should I use the Frog Suit?" in SMB3 is open narrative, player-controlled narrative. "You must use the Cloud Suit" in Super Mario Galaxy 2 is hand-held narrative, developer-controlled narrative.
Games - like any medium - have to be looked upon in context to their times.
If you're not willing to do that, you're comparing apples and oranges, nothing more. I happen to like apples and oranges enough to give each their due.
That said, Jim, just when did you play and complete The Legend of Zelda? Its an important question, as it affects how one approached the game.
I remember getting it for Christmas in 1987, that's my context. Its a pretty different time than 2011.
If you're not willing to do that, you're comparing apples and oranges, nothing more. I happen to like apples and oranges enough to give each their due.
That said, Jim, just when did you play and complete The Legend of Zelda? Its an important question, as it affects how one approached the game.
I remember getting it for Christmas in 1987, that's my context. Its a pretty different time than 2011.
I still don't like the original Zelda (never did as a kid, but i thought it was because i didn't understand english, but as i replayed as an adult it was sooooooo boring.)
Well, I kind of agree, but I'm not going to say that this means the original Zelda is better. Yeah, it's a good game, but we've advanced a lot (especially within the series). So what if some games are more streamlined. They equal good times.
"...but you can do more things in that game than most games you can play today."
Please, take of your "rose-coloured nostalgia glasses".
Please, take of your "rose-coloured nostalgia glasses".
really don't buy this.
if modern games are a rollercoaster with a few track changes, NES zelda was a scalectrix track. originality counts for a lot but as jim recently said, it doesn't mean these seminal games are actually better than their much evolved counterparts.
if modern games are a rollercoaster with a few track changes, NES zelda was a scalectrix track. originality counts for a lot but as jim recently said, it doesn't mean these seminal games are actually better than their much evolved counterparts.
I like the first Zelda because of nostalgia and how amazing it was when I was a child, but Link to the Past is the one I really play, play, play about once a year and have since I was 8. :) No need to mock new games, though I do like the open-ended design of the first Zelda... I like the more linear (to a large degree) gameplay of Link to the Past better, though... so... all in all, ALttP is the best.
Its a good thing that the original Zelda had more "in" it than most modern games....since Nintendo has been using the exact same formula to make Zelda games for the last decade!
In all seriousness though, Zelda was, up until Uncharted 2, my favorite game series of all time. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Right?
In all seriousness though, Zelda was, up until Uncharted 2, my favorite game series of all time. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Right?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, you can do more with a game that clocks in at like what, 20mb, than a game today that is around 40gigs?
Little Big Planet.
Whats up now Eskil Steenberg? Come at me bro!
Little Big Planet.
Whats up now Eskil Steenberg? Come at me bro!
Also once they went from the SNES to N64 I felt that Zelda became....horrible.
I love the NES, SNES, gameboy, gameboy color...etc top down games! The only Zelda since then that I have played and did not mind was...wait for it....Wind Waker...seriously...lol, the 64 versions rubbed me the wrong way. I have the Wii edition and it never caught my interest either, my GF likes it though.
I love the NES, SNES, gameboy, gameboy color...etc top down games! The only Zelda since then that I have played and did not mind was...wait for it....Wind Waker...seriously...lol, the 64 versions rubbed me the wrong way. I have the Wii edition and it never caught my interest either, my GF likes it though.
original Zelda was pretty linear. i mean, the dungeons had a specific order. and you couldn't access certain areas or beat certain bosses without specific items. it was, you know, ZELDA.
Stop referring to "Fallout 3" as "Fallout". It's an insult to the highest point PC RPGs has ever reached - in 1997.
Playing Darksiders now...yeah, having way more fun with that than I did the original Zelda.
But hey, I'm an American, so it's probably all the blood that makes me smile.
But hey, I'm an American, so it's probably all the blood that makes me smile.
I don't really get whats so wrong about what he says.
Most new games are very linear and just give you intersections where the story branches. Only some niche indie games like way of the samurai try to make real sandbox games where you are free to do what ever you want, you can even say "fuck it, I go now" as an option. (I have to admit, because of this option the game did grow on me).
I think it would be cool to see games like way of the samurai with higher budgets, but I don't think that all the big budget story driven games like FF, ME and co have to get more sandboxish.
Most new games are very linear and just give you intersections where the story branches. Only some niche indie games like way of the samurai try to make real sandbox games where you are free to do what ever you want, you can even say "fuck it, I go now" as an option. (I have to admit, because of this option the game did grow on me).
I think it would be cool to see games like way of the samurai with higher budgets, but I don't think that all the big budget story driven games like FF, ME and co have to get more sandboxish.
Maybe you're right about the fun thing, but do stop and think of games like Demon's Souls. I mean, really, I felt like playing Megaman all over again with that, only in medieval times and with a sword and foul demons around me. If you compare Demon's Souls to other modern games, I guess you can kinda understand him.
Okay I'm gonna be honest here, no nostalgia or anything like that.
Zelda 1 was cool, IN ITS TIME, seriously I love it as an NES game.
I mean yeah you had like 8 dungeons, lots of items, and even a "2nd quest" making the game twice as long.
But in all seriousness even Zelda 3 link to the past was longer, had more to do and looked a hell of a lot better, and its pretty much the same gameplay.
And for me zelda1 lasted like 20 hours (both quests), where I playsd Zelda 3 for around 100 hours before I got everything.
Sorry guys I know you love your nes but its time to move on, and stop playsng CoD that's prob why your opinion on recent games sucks.
Zelda 1 was cool, IN ITS TIME, seriously I love it as an NES game.
I mean yeah you had like 8 dungeons, lots of items, and even a "2nd quest" making the game twice as long.
But in all seriousness even Zelda 3 link to the past was longer, had more to do and looked a hell of a lot better, and its pretty much the same gameplay.
And for me zelda1 lasted like 20 hours (both quests), where I playsd Zelda 3 for around 100 hours before I got everything.
Sorry guys I know you love your nes but its time to move on, and stop playsng CoD that's prob why your opinion on recent games sucks.
follow
