site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   1999 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 12, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A person who played Zelda when it was released, would be aware of technological limitations of consoles of the time. This meant that yes, if you gave someone just the NES and the game cart, they wouldn't find the game as good as SMB. But the additional material required to make it a 10/10 is only the game manual, enclosed with the purchase of the game, not guides standalone or in magazines.

Edit: This is the game manual, I feel it explain the game well enough so that the player, while required to put in more thought than if they were playing a modern game, doesn't have to blindly stumble around.

Does the manual show the places where the secrets-to-everyone are? (Edit: no, it doesn't.) My main problem with the game is the "burn the random bush that looks like every other random bush"-type things, which is something that other titles would fix with affordances like cracked walls, etc. Which is something I get is a technical limitation of the system, but then again, trying to make a game that depends on a system that can't display it properly is not exactly good design.

I guess I come more from the AVGN school of software design that demonstrates that if it's not reasonably discoverable without reading the documentation it's probably a net-negative for your game design if it's there, since it's now depending on something you thought was obvious in its balance, but nobody can access it, so you're stuck trying to work around it and your game is less fun as a consequence.

Which is something I get is a technical limitation of the system

I don't think so. The space requirements to add additional burnable bush and bombable wall sprites would have been negligible. But this would have trivialized the game's "puzzles," which consisted entirely of pushing every block, bombing every wall, and burning every bush. If the movable parts are labeled, there's nothing left.

Later games added more elaborate puzzles with multiple moving parts that could be solved without brute force, allowing them to label the moving parts without trivializing the game. I think that this probably could have been done on the NES with a 128 KB ROM, but I'm not sure.

To be clear, I did play the original Zelda a couple of years after it was released, and I liked it, but I was also eight years old and mildly autistic, so I didn't mind wasting hours systematically trying to burn every bush and bomb every exposed rock surface on the overworld. But in retrospect, that's just really bad design and not much fun compared to games that came out just a few years later.

I think that there was probably intended to be a social aspect to the exploration, where friends would get together, divvy up areas to search, and then share findings with each other. And we did do that a little, but not really systematically. But I lived in a semi-rural area and didn't have many friends who owned the game.

When I was a kid playing Zelda, or Mario, or most games for that matter, "beating" them never entered my mind. Mostly because I was terrible at games. So I used them more like a toy clockwork world I enjoyed exploring. I'm under the impression this isn't dissimilar from how a lot of small kids still play games, and now there are tons of open world games without any win conditions that kids especially love.

So all that said, whether Zelda was fair or not, or beatable out of the box without any outside information, didn't matter to me as a kid. I only wanted to explore the far corners of the map, to see if I could even survive that far. Or maybe I'd really go nuts in a dungeon I'd already beat trying to wring every last secret out of it, not for any power gaming aspect, but because the limited technical vocabulary of the game wasn't immediately obvious to me and I thought anything was possible. I remember being particularly excited when I'd stumble onto one of those stairwells that took you to the small sub dungeons that had a side view instead of a top down view. Something good was always in one of those.

I don't know if Nintendo knew any of these things when they made Zelda, or if they tried to make a massive game you were supposed to beat fairly and failed, and lucked into making a fun, primitive, open world game with win conditions you could mostly ignore.

I am sorry to have doubted you. That you are aware of the idea of playing games collaboratively, shows your age. Such games are rare today, but were common in the era of Japanese arcades. There and then games such as The Tower of Druaga or The Quest of Ki would have a notebook on the arcade machine, for each player to document their possible discoveries. An implemention of collaboration was notably implemented in much later Dark Souls in the form of messages players can leave for eachother.

No offense taken. I'm assuming that you were just misled by my youthful figure.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats