The_Liquid_Laser said:
And speaking of revisionist history... "- arcades were already in downward spiral by the time Zelda released...Golden Age of Arcades ended around '83, due to both home consoles and home computers" Gradual decline? Yes. Downward Spiral? No. Arcades were still doing well even after the home console market crashed in the US. This was the biggest indicator to Arakawa, President of NoA at the time, that the NES would be successful in the US. "- games made for home VG entertainment were already quite different than just being arcade ports way, way before Zelda (especially on home computers) - home computers were more than capable of Zelda's action gameplay and already had quite a few games that were twitch based, while not being arcade alike in structure (proto-Metroidvania, "Montezuma's Revenge" from '84 comes to mind)." Just watched a video of Montezuma's Revenge. The controls look clunky as hell. Action games on home computers were not good in the 80's. That detail matters a lot. Gameplay on home consoles was much more fun for action games. The release of the NES killed Commodore. It released the Amiga, which was clearly better than the C64, but it didn't sell like it. Why? The C64 had no competition from consoles while the Amiga had to compete with the NES. "- while you'll never catch either Miyamoto or Tezuka admitting it, Hydlide did exist before Zelda (on home computers, no less). Is LoZ better game? Sure. Is it first? No. Zelda is continuation and distillation of what was happening on home gaming devices already for years prior to it. It is one of the seminal titles in gaming history, but I find it that lot of people are looking at it with too much rose tint in their glasses." A) Hydlide sucks. And yes, quality matters. If the game sucks then it really doesn't matter. This is why the Power Glove is a joke instead of getting credit for inventing motion controls. The Power Glove actually did motion controls long before the Wii remote did. But the Power Glove sucked. Quality matters. B) Most importantly, you missed my overall point. The NES created a new paradigm for gaming compared to what came before, and the game that started this paradigm was Zelda 1. The previous paradigm was that the arcade was the main venue for gaming. The best games were at the arcade, and most of the top selling Atari games were arcade ports. Super Mario Bros and Duck Hunt were very popular early NES games, but they were also arcade games. The first popular NES game that was made specifically for the home was The Legend of Zelda. And the popularity of Zelda matters, because after Zelda 1 released the NES (and all following consoles) made more and more games specifically for home consoles. The main venue for gaming became the home instead of the arcade. The popularity of Zelda matters, because it ended up changing everything that came after it. Games like Mega Man, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Super Mario Bros 3, etc... are all NES games made specifically for home consoles not to mention the many, many games that followed on later consoles. The NES created a new paradigm for gaming and the pivot happened when The Legend of Zelda released. That's why it is the most revolutionary game Nintendo (or anyone else) ever made. Zelda started the revolution that made home console gaming overthrow arcade gaming. |
I just wanted to write "Bollocks mate", but since you're half a decade or so younger than me and you obviously lack first hand experience in some areas from 80s, let's unpack some of your answers:
""- arcades were already in downward spiral by the time Zelda released...Golden Age of Arcades ended around '83, due to both home consoles and home computers"
Gradual decline? Yes. Downward Spiral? No. Arcades were still doing well even after the home console market crashed in the US. This was the biggest indicator to Arakawa, President of NoA at the time, that the NES would be successful in the US."
Arcades were declining steeply after '82, and went from $8B in '82 to $1.2B in '85 in the US. Were they dead? No. Especially not in Japan and the rest of the world. But in US they were at their lowest before NES even launched, so bollocks mate - no, NES didn't killed arcades, which is what you originally claimed. They actually went slightly up after '85 due to occasional games like Outrun and Double Dragon, to hit new peaks during early 90s with fighting games. What later "killed" arcades in US (and eventually everywhere else) were home 3D gaming systems, not NES.
""- games made for home VG entertainment were already quite different than just being arcade ports way, way before Zelda (especially on home computers)
- home computers were more than capable of Zelda's action gameplay and already had quite a few games that were twitch based, while not being arcade alike in structure (proto-Metroidvania, "Montezuma's Revenge" from '84 comes to mind)."
Just watched a video of Montezuma's Revenge. The controls look clunky as hell. Action games on home computers were not good in the 80's. That detail matters a lot. Gameplay on home consoles was much more fun for action games. The release of the NES killed Commodore. It released the Amiga, which was clearly better than the C64, but it didn't sell like it. Why? The C64 had no competition from consoles while the Amiga had to compete with the NES. "
It is obvious you have no experience with C64 if you're claiming this, so bollocks mate. Is NES better gaming system than C64? Yes, gaming was its main purpose and it launched later. Is C64 capable of smooth action gameplay, like in LoZ? Absolutely.
And Amiga (being completely irrelevant for this issue) didn't compete with NES, but with Genesis ans SNES, at vastly higher price.
""- while you'll never catch either Miyamoto or Tezuka admitting it, Hydlide did exist before Zelda (on home computers, no less). Is LoZ better game? Sure. Is it first? No.
Zelda is continuation and distillation of what was happening on home gaming devices already for years prior to it. It is one of the seminal titles in gaming history, but I find it that lot of people are looking at it with too much rose tint in their glasses."
A) Hydlide sucks. And yes, quality matters. If the game sucks then it really doesn't matter. This is why the Power Glove is a joke instead of getting credit for inventing motion controls. The Power Glove actually did motion controls long before the Wii remote did. But the Power Glove sucked. Quality matters."
No, Hydlide doesn't suck. For its time it was fairly innovative (along with few other like it). Is LoZ better? Yes. Is it first do to what games before it already did? No. Thus, bollocks mate to your "first open-world action game".
"B) Most importantly, you missed my overall point. The NES created a new paradigm for gaming compared to what came before, and the game that started this paradigm was Zelda 1. The previous paradigm was that the arcade was the main venue for gaming. The best games were at the arcade, and most of the top selling Atari games were arcade ports. Super Mario Bros and Duck Hunt were very popular early NES games, but they were also arcade games. The first popular NES game that was made specifically for the home was The Legend of Zelda.
And the popularity of Zelda matters, because after Zelda 1 released the NES (and all following consoles) made more and more games specifically for home consoles. The main venue for gaming became the home instead of the arcade. The popularity of Zelda matters, because it ended up changing everything that came after it. Games like Mega Man, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Super Mario Bros 3, etc... are all NES games made specifically for home consoles not to mention the many, many games that followed on later consoles. The NES created a new paradigm for gaming and the pivot happened when The Legend of Zelda released. That's why it is the most revolutionary game Nintendo (or anyone else) ever made. Zelda started the revolution that made home console gaming overthrow arcade gaming."
Distortion field at its strongest (along with general lack of knowledge of gaming history). Way prior to LoZ there was an action game that was very different from arcades that sold exceptionally well on previous gen console that showed that you can have action games that are not just arcade ports or arcade alike (what's funny is that you even mention it) - yes, Adventure on Atari 2600. Not to mention all other games from that time that were very different from arcades, and different at that in lot more ways than LoZ ever was.
LoZ is one of the most influential games of all time. Most revolutionary ever made? Pure bollocks mate.
