Wesley Dodds
08-30-2007, 11:16 PM
This was just going to be a short post in Ryu's 16-bit thread but it got a bit out of hand.
Lately two retro games I've been playing are Battle of Olympus and Faxanadu. They're both Zelda-II style action adventure games that mix combat and exploration. They were both on the NES. Battle of Olympus is basically the game equivalent of the movie Clash of the Titans and Faxanadu is a fantasy RPG.
In Faxanadu I eventually got to a point where I decided I couldn't be bothered playing on. It wasn't that the game was boring: it was that bad controls made the game too frustrating. If a game's good you'll tolerate a certain amount of frustration. The problem was that in Faxanadu what to do next is usually fairly obscure. You have to do a lot of exploring and experimenting to advance. But the bad controls (especially the jump) punish experimentation. I had an idea on how to solve one of the puzzles and trudged through many screens of combat and pixel-perfect jumps to try it out – but I was wrong, and after that I decided I wouldn't continue with the game.
It wasn't that it was a bad game – it was that the game wanted me to explore and experiment but punished me for it. Imagine what Metroid would have been like if Samus had jumped like Simon Belmont and you've got the idea.
That got me thinking about how platformers have changed. Faxanadu throws you in the deep end – like Metroid. The first time I played Metroid I didn't get very far because I couldn't work out where I was supposed to go. After playing Metroid Zero Mission I went back to Metroid and was able to play it because I knew what to do. It's hard to believe that the people who originally played Metroid went around shooting walls. I can't imagine anyone finishing Metroid without using a map. Even if they had to draw their own as they went.
When I was a kid games could take me months or years – assuming I finished them at all. These days I normally knock off a game in a few days. Of course, I'm a much better player now, but it's also because games have changed in two ways:
1. They're easier because we have more control.
Back to Faxanadu's jump. If you want to dodge a projectile you have to jump at just the right time. You can't move in mid-air and there's no double jump. You can't even duck. And sometimes you won't be able to jump because there isn't enough room. Worst of all, you're frequently in situations where it's impossible to avoid taking damage.
Compare that with a modern Castlevania where you have control over your character in the air and have a double jump. The extra control gives you a lot more leeway. Instead of jumping at just the right time you can jump too early or too late and compensate for it in mid-air. And more importantly, you can react. In Faxanadu (and the original Castlevania) not only do you have to time your jump perfectly, you have to know in advance when to jump.
The extra control makes it a lot easier to get good enough at a game to finish it. Rigid controls mean that you have to master a game before you're able to actually play it. If you're a kid, that's fine. Kids don't get bored that easily. Odds are you'll stay interested long enough to compensate for bad controls. But when you get older you don't have the same patience.
2. Games hold your hand more.
Games still have puzzles and it's still possible to get stuck. But it's rare to get so stuck that you have to give up. The first time I played Metroid I got to Kraid and decided that the game was too difficult for me. I didn't know that I had to get the ice beam first. Generally, modern games provide hints, or at least signposts. I've been stumped by some of the puzzles in the God of War games but not so stumped that I couldn't work out what to do by experimenting and looking around to see if I'd missed anything. In some of the NES adventure games you get to points where you have no idea what to do and the solution is so obscure that you're probably only going to find it by chance.
Anyway, that's what brings me to Battle of Olympus. It's similar to Simon's Quest: you work out what you have to do by talking to townspeople. Starting this game, I actually took notes on what the people were saying (mainly because at the start of the game I had no idea what anyone was going on about). It made the game a lot of fun. I was always able to work out where to go next by looking through my notes. No random exploration. The only place I was really frustrated by was the forest – the screens were so similar that it was easy to get lost or miss something. If I'd been more on the ball I'd have made a map.
It was the best of both worlds – it had the fun of working out what you had to do but it never left you stranded. There was only one point where I didn't know what to do next and had to embark on a lot of annoying backtracking. Of course, if I hadn't kept track of the hints I'd have been stuck more often.
Of course, it's not easy. Because the controls don't give you much freedom you have to practice a lot. It would be an easier game for a kid. Playing as an adult, you get too far into the game for your level of skill. Then you reach a boss that you don't have a hope of defeating and you've got no choice but to go away and practice the basics. Boring.
Basically, to enjoy these old NES games, you really have to be a kid: easily amused enough to get good at the game before you get bored. Adult gamers, in general, are less patient. I don't know if I'd be able to play some of those old games without help from GameFAQs -- you get unfairly stuck too often.
Lately two retro games I've been playing are Battle of Olympus and Faxanadu. They're both Zelda-II style action adventure games that mix combat and exploration. They were both on the NES. Battle of Olympus is basically the game equivalent of the movie Clash of the Titans and Faxanadu is a fantasy RPG.
In Faxanadu I eventually got to a point where I decided I couldn't be bothered playing on. It wasn't that the game was boring: it was that bad controls made the game too frustrating. If a game's good you'll tolerate a certain amount of frustration. The problem was that in Faxanadu what to do next is usually fairly obscure. You have to do a lot of exploring and experimenting to advance. But the bad controls (especially the jump) punish experimentation. I had an idea on how to solve one of the puzzles and trudged through many screens of combat and pixel-perfect jumps to try it out – but I was wrong, and after that I decided I wouldn't continue with the game.
It wasn't that it was a bad game – it was that the game wanted me to explore and experiment but punished me for it. Imagine what Metroid would have been like if Samus had jumped like Simon Belmont and you've got the idea.
That got me thinking about how platformers have changed. Faxanadu throws you in the deep end – like Metroid. The first time I played Metroid I didn't get very far because I couldn't work out where I was supposed to go. After playing Metroid Zero Mission I went back to Metroid and was able to play it because I knew what to do. It's hard to believe that the people who originally played Metroid went around shooting walls. I can't imagine anyone finishing Metroid without using a map. Even if they had to draw their own as they went.
When I was a kid games could take me months or years – assuming I finished them at all. These days I normally knock off a game in a few days. Of course, I'm a much better player now, but it's also because games have changed in two ways:
1. They're easier because we have more control.
Back to Faxanadu's jump. If you want to dodge a projectile you have to jump at just the right time. You can't move in mid-air and there's no double jump. You can't even duck. And sometimes you won't be able to jump because there isn't enough room. Worst of all, you're frequently in situations where it's impossible to avoid taking damage.
Compare that with a modern Castlevania where you have control over your character in the air and have a double jump. The extra control gives you a lot more leeway. Instead of jumping at just the right time you can jump too early or too late and compensate for it in mid-air. And more importantly, you can react. In Faxanadu (and the original Castlevania) not only do you have to time your jump perfectly, you have to know in advance when to jump.
The extra control makes it a lot easier to get good enough at a game to finish it. Rigid controls mean that you have to master a game before you're able to actually play it. If you're a kid, that's fine. Kids don't get bored that easily. Odds are you'll stay interested long enough to compensate for bad controls. But when you get older you don't have the same patience.
2. Games hold your hand more.
Games still have puzzles and it's still possible to get stuck. But it's rare to get so stuck that you have to give up. The first time I played Metroid I got to Kraid and decided that the game was too difficult for me. I didn't know that I had to get the ice beam first. Generally, modern games provide hints, or at least signposts. I've been stumped by some of the puzzles in the God of War games but not so stumped that I couldn't work out what to do by experimenting and looking around to see if I'd missed anything. In some of the NES adventure games you get to points where you have no idea what to do and the solution is so obscure that you're probably only going to find it by chance.
Anyway, that's what brings me to Battle of Olympus. It's similar to Simon's Quest: you work out what you have to do by talking to townspeople. Starting this game, I actually took notes on what the people were saying (mainly because at the start of the game I had no idea what anyone was going on about). It made the game a lot of fun. I was always able to work out where to go next by looking through my notes. No random exploration. The only place I was really frustrated by was the forest – the screens were so similar that it was easy to get lost or miss something. If I'd been more on the ball I'd have made a map.
It was the best of both worlds – it had the fun of working out what you had to do but it never left you stranded. There was only one point where I didn't know what to do next and had to embark on a lot of annoying backtracking. Of course, if I hadn't kept track of the hints I'd have been stuck more often.
Of course, it's not easy. Because the controls don't give you much freedom you have to practice a lot. It would be an easier game for a kid. Playing as an adult, you get too far into the game for your level of skill. Then you reach a boss that you don't have a hope of defeating and you've got no choice but to go away and practice the basics. Boring.
Basically, to enjoy these old NES games, you really have to be a kid: easily amused enough to get good at the game before you get bored. Adult gamers, in general, are less patient. I don't know if I'd be able to play some of those old games without help from GameFAQs -- you get unfairly stuck too often.