Problem with gaming today - We keep rewritting history

This is an interesting article I found in Gamasutra

I'd like to know what everyone thinks. This is what I think, because it reminds me of the Zelda 2 bashing.

Lie: Zelda 2 is the black sheep of the Zelda series.

Truth: Zelda 2 was a runaway hit where people would drive to other states just to get to the game. Zelda 2 gameplay was copied by other companies. Zelda 2 may not have been as popular as Zelda 1, but that is like saying Contra was not as popular as Super Mario Brothers because nothing else was.

Why: Game journalists blindly transcribed Shigeru Miyamoto saying it and so proclaimed it to be ‘fact’. We all know on gaming message forums that the gamer will ‘re-imagine’ games he doesn’t like to be ‘bad’. But Zelda 2’s good sales show that it most certainly wasn’t ‘bad’. The point is that Miyamoto and the rest are just as human as you and I. Their re-imagination should be held up to historical fact instead of just blindly transcribing what they say.

Part of the problem is that gaming is a side branch of the technology industry which thrives on updates and new iterations; the industry typically disregards any past work they've done. Also I would be willing to try Elder Scrolls I and II if there was a way to play them. I don't think they're offered on any digital storefront (I've never played an Elder Scrolls game before).

Bethesda offers both ES 1 and 2 free on their official webpage, all you need to do is download Dos Box on your computer.

@FireEmblem_Man: Awesome! I just downloaded arena.

@FireEmblem_Man: So, by your own post, sales = quality?

@FireEmblem_Man: It's great that they offer Elder Scrolls I & II for digital download on the official website (I had no clue), but my point of old games being lost to time still holds. For example, until last month Grim Fandango was a game everyone has heard about it, but few people have played because it was not offered on storefronts, and the disc version was incompatible with a lot of modern computer systems. A lot of companies don't bother (or cannot due to legal strangleholds) to make past work easily accessible to newer generations. I think it's also true that a lot of video game players don't bother digging up the history of games, but this is true for films too.

I've actually wondered where the whole "Zelda 2 is a bad game." Sense came from.

It was different, but Bad?

I would say the main problem(s) in gaming isn't the rewriting history part, it's gaming journalism going under and people still holding on to nostalgia. With the whole nostalgia thing I still hold a few old games to high regard, but what annoys me is the nostalgia gamers who literally think that todays games blow compared to games in the 90's and 80's.

Zelda 2 is still my favorite Zelda.

Did you read the article, or are you just pointing out what I've said about Zelda 2? The game was great and was hard to find for its time you know. My parents were lucky to grab a copy of Zelda 2. But this has nothing to do with sales, it's about how "gamers" are re-writing history.

Nostalgia is a perfect example to use as a 'scape goat for journalism today. You can't claim to be hardcore if you haven't played the original games or wait for a remake of a game you never heard of. Another example of the article stated that a lot of journalist never played Gradius II, but praises Dying Light's gameplay as innovation and new.

Oh, I read the article all right, worry not :P Just wanna clear that up first. Your argument for Zelda 2 is that it must have been good since it was popular and/or sold well correct? That's not a great standard for "being good" me thinks.

----

As for the article, I think it makes a lot of sense....if you're a professional reviewer/writer/creator for gaming (or other mediums).

As a consumer of video games (or any other medium really) you (and everyone else) are not required to learn of what existed in the past. Sure, you should as it will allow you to discover some cool treasures, understand the medium and/or genres of said medium better and in general it won't hurt you to do it. However, you can still enjoy the current versions of whatever medium you like without looking back, as a consumer. You are still likely to have loads of fun without that knowledge of past works.

If you're a professional of the medium, things are a bit different. Be it as a creator, a writer or a critic, you need to know how said medium/genre "evolved" through the times (not every single bit of it of course, but at least the "big players" per say) in order to better know how to do your job. You need those comparison points to the past (and similar projects in the present) to know how to evaluate what you're doing/reviewing. Again, you need those since your job as professional of the medium requires you to not "just enjoy" it, but to know how it works from inside and out.

Also, as it was mentioned already, unfortunately it's rarely easy to play those lesser known/popular classics if they aren't ported to the current gen. They just get left behind, literally.

Nah Zelda 2 legitimately sucks

.....Or maybe you just suck at it? :P

Game Grumps is doing a playthrough of it. The gameplay itself is certainly very, very different from any Zelda, but I would say it mostly looks ok.

The biggest thing for me is all the convoluted and obscure nonsense you have to just somehow figure out on your own. So much stupid hidden shit mandatory to beat the game.

I mean Zelda 1 has hidden bomb walls and whatnot but the stuff in Zelda 2 is ridiculous. It's like they designed it to require a player's guide.

Okay, thank you! As for Zelda 2 being great because of sales, I didn't state that at all or did you not read the rest of the truth? It wasn't as popular as Zelda I but I never thought that it was a bad game.

You have some good points, but I do think it's really better to try original games before making comparisons to newer titles. This thread of Elder Scrolls vs Dark Souls had me think that not everyone has played the first 2 games of the franchise and already claimed that Dark Souls is better when one franchise is inspirational for all RPG's in general, while the modern game is just claimed to be better than the older games.

@FireEmblem_Man:

Nah brah, it just that this phrase of yours caught my eye: "But Zelda 2’s good sales show that it most certainly wasn't ‘bad" :P RE6 also sold by the truckload. A good game, it was not :P

And yeah, one should play the previous titles of a franchise and/or "classics" if one can, but it's not a requirement to enjoy the new ones. As consumers, our only "job" is to enjoy (or not) what is available to us, be it old or new. Simple as that :)

That's why I say gaming journalism is shit compared to what it was in the 90's.

Well, except those of us 'ancient' enough have bought and played it on release (and I'm under 30, lol)

The title is correct, but contains only 15% of the actual issue.

Its an excellent article, @Felipepepe seems to be an excellent writer when it comes to gaming articles at least. His articles tend to be pretty insightful.

But yes, I have noticed this pattern too. Franchises and names being irrelevent to the gaming public right up until someone decides to hype it up again. Which was the case with the recent King's Quest, and even Fallout and Ultima. Where modern gamers opinion of those games were "Literally who?" up until a new game carrying the brand was announced.

Zelda 2 is one of the best Zeldas for sure. If only for its sheer brutality, and its black sheep nature.

The zelda example is atrocious, because it absolutely is the black sheep of the franchise. It is the completely different game from the rest of the franchise, and it's not rewriting history. It is history, look at where the franchise went, and hasn't returned to.

The article talks more about how people focus too much on tech changes and act like some of those oldies aren't worth a spin. When in a lot of cases that's not true at all, going back to a golden oldie is always worth the spin. Sure there are cryptic aspects of older games, dated aspects, and elements that have been outclassed, but the fundamental experience is still plenty great.

@dommeus: exactly, but for those who didn't play it on release. There was no preservation of the game for future generations, until last month.

Agreed with this.

I am playing games from the 80s and early 90s that I never had the chance to try out before, and despite playing them for the first time. I am having more fun with them than I have had with anything recent shat out by Bungie, BioWare, Bethesda, EA or Sony first party studios.

@Vaasman: There are not just hidden bomb walls in Zelda 1. Some dungeons are hidden as well.

Frankly, other than maybe one or two segments of Zelda 1 feeling like "oh come on!", I think what that game does to this day is freakin brilliant. The sheer freedom of that game, the way you are let loose, the general feeling of exploration. The fact that Zelda actually never built on that is disappointing in hindsight.

The biggest shame in the industry is like the article stated. Developers of franchises dont play the old entries. Even key people.

This issue first became apparent to me with this.

But it gets worse. You see, when designing the tech tree, the designers of Civilization: Beyond Earth looked at the Alpha Centauri wikipedia article instead of you know... playing the goddamn game.

Now you see people claim to be truly experts in a franchise and truly knowleedgeable despite having only played the most recent entry that really has nothing to do with the core vision of the series. When asked about returning to older games, they say some bullshit like, "its too outdated".

But alas, because masterpieces like Wizardry 7, Fallout 1 and X-COM: UFO Defense, get dismissed as being rubbish by self proclaimed fans of the series, they dont get nearly as much attention as they should. Why do they glanced over like that? Because they lack the hype and spectacle of newer entries.

Uhh... Zelda 2 sucked. I was the kind of kid that would chop through just about any game I had. My family wasn't well off at the time. So if I got a game, even if it was a stinker, I would power through it. I never could bring myself to tolerate Zelda 2 though. Even the "wannabe" titles that followed in its footsteps were better games (Battle of Olympus for example).

Sure there were plenty of titles that were much worse on the NES, but that doesn't stop Zelda 2 from being a mediocre game and a terrible sequel. I've never met a person who liked it, not even back then. If people were really driving to other states to buy it, it was likely based on the expectations set by the first Zelda. Only to end up disappointed like a lot of us were.

Anyways, I enjoyed the article enough. Zelda 2 just happens to be a terrible example.

I don't have a problem with that article or your point except this:

Good sales do not demonstrate quality. Nor do poor sales reflect quality. This is not just on Zelda, it's on EVERYTHING.

Bad things sell and good things don't. Sales don't reveal quality.

That said, I owned and played Zelda 2 when it was the hottest new Zelda game. I played it and spoke to others about it...after completion and playing it again for a few months, I realized it wasn't a good game. I didn't care that magazines at the time told me it was a good game or that websites today tell me it is not a good game.

My own experience tells me what it was, and Zelda 2 was not a great game Zelda or otherwise. I still own that game though. It wasn't terrible if that makes you feel better. For example, I loved Castlevania, but Castlevania 2 also was "not great" in many of the same ways. However, Megaman 2 was about 20x better than Megaman 1. Go figure.

I guess the lesson is to decide by experience if you like a game or not.

@Maroxad:

that would explain why the Tomb Raider reboot plays more like Uncharted than Tomb Raider.

(I usually bold what portion I am responding to. Sorry I had to cut your post)

I would feel comfortable saying that 90% of gamers in forums base their opinions on other peoples experiences. This causes some unique problems in today's climate. Youtube sensations like Angry Joe base their rant videos on comment sections and game forums. If gamers seem upset about something, Joe screams about it a couple of days later in his video. Then the gaming community uses Joe's rant videos to affirm their views. So in the end, everyone is pissed about something and yet not too many people have experienced anything with an open mind.

The internet is such a great place.

I read the internet was wonderful so although I have had mixed experiences I fear to speak up against the overlords.

For the record, I agree with most of what you said...but I don't have the solution. :(

Eh, I think that's reaching. Joe's reactions usually seem genuine and not manufactured.

If we're being honest, people in game media come off like they only get an opinion when a certain crowd starts talking about something.

How exactly is that a problem with gaming today? Do you really think at Blizzard or Valve or EA or Nintendo they're sitting in their offices fretting about how Zelda II got received?

A problem for geeks and geek writers maybe, not for the industry itself.

Zelda 2 was probably good for its time but it hasn't aged well at all.

Zelda 2 was a bad game back then and it's even worse now with the higher standards. No one actually likes that game. It IS horrible. No one is re-writing that games history.

One of the biggest problems(and this is mostly nintendo fanboys) is they live in nostalgia. They can't seem to let go of the 80's or 90's. When I hear stuff like "games used to be so much better because they were harder"....I cringe.

The only reason those NES games were so hard is NOT because they were expertly designed and made that way. Nope. They were hard because the NES hardware was horrible and they were limited. Those NES games are insanely hard because of poor coding/hardware and horrible controls. Only a handful of games on the NES are worth playing. It is even more obvious when how much insanely better the sequels like Super Metroid, Zelda LTTP, Final Fantasy 4-6 etc are when compared to the NES games.

Change is always risky, but from it come the best ideas (very rare nowadays though)

An interesting and enlightening read, thanks for the find Fire.

He brings up some good points, and while he hits and addresses the obvious counter argument that gaming is a tech-driven industry and therefor past games will mostly be viewed in the context of promise hindered by technological limitation and are nothing but the first steps into iterative potential.....I'd say: that is what many are. The sad truth is, a lot of software out there IS disposable and very easily replaceable the more time passes. That's not to say there's not those titles out there that won't hold value forty years from now like they do today, but that's far the exception rather than the rule.

Seriously.....why would we choose to suffer the original Metroid when we can have the improvements in Super Metroid? What does the first game lay claim to to be valued higher than its sequel which executed everything far better? Laying the "find power-ups and unlocking previous areas" Metroidvania foundation, alright I'll grant, and the original will rightly hold its place in history and should be remembered for it. But not many games today can tout such accolades to stand the test of time as they do nothing but afford iterative improvements to mechanics within the exact same structure seen in previous games of the franchise, and they'll subsequently be forgotten due to it. I personally don't see anything wrong with that. Not all art is deserved of remembrance when it does not much more than fine-tune. In fact, I'd say very little is.

It's unfair to attempt to compare games to movies, books, and other forms of art in this manner because their unique characteristics that help them endure the test of time so well are not compromised so heavily by its passage. Movies depend upon good writing, characters, and narrative, elements that are removed from technological prowess and its incessant march, not mechanics whose quality can appear antiquated and archaic comparatively even within the passage of a few years because they depend so much on them. Games exist within a very formulaic structure in each particular genre they represent, whose appeal derives from mechanics of which are in a perpetual state of refinement and improvement, and because of this I would say that this is gaming's biggest obstacle in preserving their historical significance when the very thing that their merit lay on is always bested. The way I see it, 99% of the time the "value" of any game largely is tied to the period of technology it was created in. When that's improved upon, on what basis should the previous be continually acknowledged unless it accomplishes something paramount never seen before?

With that said though, I do agree with the author's general sentiment that this medium is more prone to the past being seen as disposable than others. He has a point in his example of King's Quest and its creator.