Are NES Games Bad Game Design? 

Well this is interesting. I actually appreciate your passion to be willing to discuss this at length, and totally appreciate your perspective on it. So I think the majority of issues you've countered here boil down to a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. And you know what, I'll take the blame for that, I should have been more clear in my original video. I sort of pride myself on being concise and not dragging out an issue, but in that process I tend to lose some things in translation. If people went in hearing what they wanted to hear there's bound to be some pushback. So let me set the record straight on some issues - I think the biggest by far is that you assume I meant ALL NES games are bad - which is not true at all if you actually listened to what I said. My conclusion was that literally "there are some good elements in NES games". I pointed out specific examples that I felt were cheap, unfair or annoying, but obviously there are shining examples, I think Castlevania and Punch-Out are some of the best on the system. We seem to disagree about lives, but only somewhat. The ONLY issue I had with them was when it sets you back to the beginning of the entire GAME not continue from the start of a world. That specific type of punishment I found to be very annoying and artificial difficulty, not anything else. Lives have their place, and you're right that they were designed differently with that in mind, but it doesn't change the fact that some of the games have seriously stupid layouts/obstacles. Again, not ALL, just some, since apparently that part wasn't clear. SMB3 - the NES game I praised more than any other in the video, was also misinterpreted. This was not the first time I've ever played SMB3, I've played every world just never had beaten it. I talked about how it was WELL-DESIGNED, and really challenging in a good way. So I'm not really sure what your issue was actually...I enjoyed it immensely. Just used save states in between levels after going back to the start several times to speed up the process (since I was streaming - it was per chat's request actually); I wasn't like using them every 2 seconds or something. It was only to save time of having to beat the same levels I'd already beaten. You're right about Mega Man nailing a lot of the issues I had - again I think it boils down to this assumption that I meant EVERY SINGLE NES game is terrible and should die in a fire, which was just not at all my intent. You showed all the good with this video, while I focused on the bad in mine. At the end of the day, it comes down to something I've been screaming from the rooftops for years now: "A creator's opinion is implied". It was all just my opinion and perspective, same with your video here. That's actually the beauty of games is that we can disagree and still loves games. My thesis, which I stated up front was to look at "the bad" on NES games and see how new games have improved upon them. I thought I was clear but apparently could have done a better job of it. Peace bro, thanks for adding to the conversation :)

I actually find it humorous he included bits from Sonic the Hedgehog "The Classic NES Game"

I think you may have alluded to it, but just in case I thought I'd point out that some of the "glitches" he complained about were actually programming *exploits* used to cope with hardware limitations or to _help_ the player! An example of the former is flicker; basically, the NES could only have so much stuff on the screen but by making certain things "flicker" (rapidly disappear then reappear), it could handle a little more. An example of the latter is slowdown; sometimes it was for "bad" reasons, but other times the designers counted on it as a built-in balance for when the programming of enemies or hazards might wind up throwing a bit too much at you all at once.

I understand where he is going for with his point about starting all over again getting boring. I remember getting extremely bored to play all those starter levels in contra again and again only so I could attempt that level where I was actually stuck in. Depends on a game, but usually I'd rather have the game challenge me in other ways than limiting my times to attempt and learn the level I'm stuck in.

"nes games look old" ....yes?

I remember reading in a magazine once about one reason NES games hold up and are so well designed - the small amount of buttons. They had to come up with gameplay mechanics and concepts that worked with only a few input options, so gameplay ideas were very pure and simple. Think about why so many older people feel more comfortable trying out a game with an NES controller than the newest games that have like 16 buttons on them.

So, the secret warp whistle in SMB3 was a risk/reward system this whole time? Mindblown!

Using Bubble Man's stage as a complaint area for 1-hit KO's was a bad idea. I thought it was one of the easiest to get by and by far the easiest part of Bubble Man's stage. If he was going to make a complaint about that, he should at least use a better example, like Mega Man 5's spike fall in Wily 1.

As I mention in the video - I have nothing against Snoman Gaming and enjoy his channel. He has some great videos that I recommend watching and it's worth a sub if you're interested in game design. I disagreed on this particular topic, and thought a rebuttal was worth making. Gotta stand up for the NES.

I never felt Shovel Knight was a challenging game.

I do agree that the original NES was overly punishing, and that it is what we would now consider artificial difficulty. However, it can't be stressed enough that during the NES era we were still figuring out what games were. The designers of the NES were typically arcade designers; the idea of a home video game system was so novel that no one knew how to do it. And there were advantages--anyone who's been caught in an autosave in an impossible situation knows that there's sometimes benefits from backtracking after a death! Still, I think the main issue we need to remember is that game designers were still figuring things out back then. To compare them with today's standards is nonsensical because they weren't designing to today's standards. I also really love your point about certain games not being for everyone. In trying to reach as wide an audience as possible many game franchises have lost what makes them unique. The only way to truly create depth and meaningful gameplay is to acknowledge who your audience is--and that will NEVER be "everyone". Literature, TV, and movies have long done this. Someone making, say, a procedural drama isn't going to try to win over romantic comedy fans; the rom-com folks aren't their audience. This allows them to tailor their movie or TV show to their audience. You can make certain assumptions, because your audience does. Hallmark has made a lot of money making holiday romantic comedies (my wife's favorite vice) by tailoring them to exactly what their audience craves. Games can do this; Dark Souls, Demon Souls, and their ilk show that. But you have to be willing to say, as a studio, "We are not chasing this 50% of the market". It was easy to do that in the NES days, because no one knew what the market was; it's harder, but more rewarding, today.

Remember when RU-vid used to have video replies appear under the original? Hopefully this excellent rebuttal appears in the recommendations columns for those viewing the original.

This could've been a 30-minute git gud rant. But you've handled it so much better. P.S. That part from original video where he was admiring Shovel Knight for implementing a 30-year old mechanics felt amusing for ironic reasons for me xD

I think that back then when we played a game, we were not expecting to beat it. Simply playing it and seeing how far you could get with limited resources were fun for me. Replaying a level was not repetitive or boring, but a way to realize that how far you had improved, or find hidden treasures/mechanics. Nowadays, we have so many games to play, sometimes we rush to finish a game. I might enjoy it for a while, but soon feel very empty and go back play NES games. They suck, they stomp on me and hurt my pride, but I love them.

Really, the worst elements of game design from the early home console area (and forget NES; this _really_ early era of Atari/Odyssey/Intellivision/Colecovision) were drafted from arcades. Arcade games didn't even have "ends" back in those days; they'd just go on and on having you rack up points until you ran out of lives; the score was the end goal. The point of lives was to limit the player's play time before they pumped in another quarter, increasing revenue for the arcade and the machine's maker. Once arcade games started to have regular progression and endings instead of just the same thing over and over, the entire point of a "continue" was invented precisely to stop player frustration from having to replay early levels again--because they knew some players would walk away instead of continuing to pay to redo those early experiences, whereas in things like beat 'em ups they'd keep pumping in quarters for continues precisely because they'd already invested so much time and money in getting that far. And these kind of things became part of the game design culture, where it took time for designers to wrap their heads around the idea that home console games should have a different kind of paradigm for what the relationship between game and player should be. (Compare, for example, the challenge of an NES _Castlevania_ title to that of _Haunted Castle_ designed as an arcade quarter-sucker.) Once developers learned those lessons, as you highlight in the video, they started doing some amazing things. (Of course, nowadays, a big-budget game's primary goal is...to get players to keep pumping in the "quarters" via microtransactions, so it looks like we've just come full circle back to the bad old days. The more things change...)

I like how "That's just limited hardware" is actually a defense here

Hard games can be punishing as hell, but that is part of the appealing. You simply want to avoid creating bullshit and other unfair stuff.

My main problem with the vid was how Snoman didnt even seem to try during many clips. Castlevania for example he literally stood there attacking, no attempt to dodge attacks, he just expected to be able to blindly press buttons and win the game. Then the "looking old" complaint is completely irrelevant to the design, and does he expect the NES to run Crysis at 4k 144fps? Theres a such thing as hardware limits. This video felt a little rushed, a bit for the attention and he sounded like the stereotypical meme-game journalist who demands every game have an instant win or no death mode or complain about difficulty. It's stupid to expect a 30 or 40 year old game to follow today's design elements. Bad level design, bad performance and bad execution of mechanics are things that make a game bad, not the idea of lives or difficult stages. Also while I love save states and defend using them you CANT judge a game when you're cheating or abusing the game using an out-of-game tool. Like he isnt giving the design the chance or light of day. Another great video to add to the library, unlike Snoman's

I feel like Snoman made that video to asskiss indie games. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate indie games at all. In fact, I'm becoming an indie game dev myself. It's just that his bias is so, so ironic. To Snomam, have you actually tried sitting down and not walking off of platforms?

This was a good response. I'm also a fan of Snoman Gaming and have learned a lot from his design videos, and he raised some decent points in this one (Ghosts and Goblins is not a fun game for many of the reasons he pointed out) but it felt like he was outright ignoring when NES games were doing everything he praised Shovel Knight for. Funny thing about his comments on lives, I'm not even sure if I like lives either, but I do appreciate games that expect me to learn their tricks over multiple playthroughs. The idea that a game gets more fun the more your skills evolve is the entire reason I like many of the better NES games your video discussed.

i think Snowman overgeneralized NES Games too much.

He criticizes restarting all over but praises dark souls, a game which does the same every time you die and have to restart the incredibly dull way to a boss.

I have seen the original video and I've never seen a RU-vid video I 100% disagreed with it and Dan seems like he hasn't even played the games he complains about.

The good thing about NES games and older games in general, is that you you were forced to learn damn near every move to beat them.

I highly recomend beating mario 3 without using the warps. At least just once.

"NES games are poorly designed." >The first level of Super Mario Bros. is studied and discussed as an example of pristine game design to this day. In a form of comedic irony, the video trying to impute NES games as bad design is itself an example of bad video essay design.

Great video! And while I kind of understand where Snoman was coming from (I've played countless NES games, most of them great, some of them just terrible, lol), the overall structure of his video came off as contradictory and using poor examples. Some people like hard games, whether modern or classic, like Sekiro and Ninja Gaiden, and others like more slower-paced or easier games, and I think they're both fine. Also I gave an immediate like for showing Iron Tank and Lolo! We need more Lolo, that gem is underrated, it needs more love!

The one issue about Mega Man/Rockman 2 I see is that Crash Bomb section where you're supposed to blow up those blobs on the walls while conserving your ammo. Something tells me that specific part didn't seem well-designed, but that's just me seeing too many people run out of Crash Bomb ammo anyways.

It is great to see a response video that isn't toxic and talks rationally

NES games: playing the game was the point. Modern games: beating the game is the point.

Im surprised that there was no mention about NES JRPGs.

The number of strawberries you collect in Celeste does determine which ending image you get similar to how money worked in Luigi's Mansion, so there's that. Don't know if that's much of an incentive though.

The entire video was basically he hates the concept of lives for almost 17 minutes.

So pleasant to hear someone who understands the philosophy of game desgn of that era, and not blinded by "modern only" standards.

I can defenitely see where Snoman was coming from here, it can be needlessly frustrating or repetitive to deal with the lives system, but there's definitely more to it. Guess it goes to show that even potentially annoying mechanics can be beneficial if they're well thought out and if the games are built around them. Both his video and yours are great! They sorta compliment each other as a pair. I'd never really thought about the merits of building a game around a lives system before!

I thought the lives system was just a carry over from arcade cabinets. It took a number of years for developers to start branching out. Plenty of games were actually arcade ports too which also helps explain its persistence in older games.

Great video! I always felt like the classic Mega Man series was the best possible implementation of a lives system - you never lose *too* much progress from running out of lives, and it's an opportunity to rethink your strategy, consider tackling a different stage first, etc. rather than grinding yourself endlessly against the same room of obstacles. Nothing about that feels like an unfair arbitrary punishment to me.

Although I find re-playing sections I've died at to be annoying, tedious, and redundant at times, citing "What's so fun or challenging about replaying the same thing I just did again?" an "everybody wins" philosophy is the laziest implementation of game design, and are usually used in games I either play only once, and or forget almost everything about other than the title years after I've completed it. If NES games are guilty of being quarter suckers, new age hand-holding type games are guilty of ripping you off out of an experience not worth re-experiencing (typically referring to single player games.)

Finally, someone did a counterargument of Snoman's video. As an amateur game programmer, I respect some of these NES games. The main reason is because they managed to pioneered a lot of ideal mechanics that was later implemented in today's standards. It is really jarring how limited the technology back then, and yet they pulled something clever to make it work. I'm glad you made a defense on everyone's favorite "Archaic Live System" in which most people bashed out on modern games who uses that, such as Sonic Mania and MegaMan 11. I really hated that he keeps on mentioning Shovel Knight on how it did everything better, even though the game reiterates the same concept in older games. I love Shovel Knight, but that game is supported with modern hardware and developers who have learned from their predecessors, in contrast to the primitive nature of the NES games that he likes to compare.

That guy at Snoman Gaming's criticizing game design while skipping on Mario Bros 3 all the way up to level 8 on his first playthrough and cheating by using save states made me insta-RAGE. Not the kind of person that should be taken serious for this kind of reviews.

Thank you!! I love everything about this video. I also disagreed with MUCH of what SnowmanGaming said (and Dunkey bad-talked NES game design recently as well -- didn't agree with him either). It's like Snowman would say something was bad, then show an example from Dark Souls that he liked, and I'd scream at my phone, "That's the same thing! It's just that you connected with it when Dark Souls did it and thought it was bullcrap when NES games did it." I also didn't like how he said that NES games look like garbage. As you said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are tons of NES games that I think look awesome (Megaman 2, Super Mario Bros. 2, etc.). In fact, I prefer the clean and 'super easy to read' level design of many games of that era, while many games now look unnecessarily *busy* in comparison. Again, loved your video and editing/presentation. Much respect! Thanks, RU-vid recommendations! :)

I remember in the SNES era where the game gave us infinite lives and being let down how easy it was. It felt very rewarding to master a game. But back then I got like 2-3 NES games a year so I had time to master it while today I would never go for that type of game cause my time is limited and I got way too many games to get through.

Thank you for this detailed response! I can tell that you really do care about this stuff. Awesome work, man!

I also LOLed when I saw him use Duck Tales as a flawed game, I'm good at that game and I know a lot of people that think it's easy. I found it hilarious on the parts he messed up on like he didn't know how to time things and he didn't understand that you can't pogo on snow. I think out of all the NES games Duck Tales punishes the impatient and those that have a hard time learning game mechanics. In fact the three that he shows, Mega Man, Castlevania, and again Duck Tails, are like this. How he describes modern games he obviously understands HOW to do this but for some reason he is unable to do so in these or any of the NES games he shows. I think he just isn't giving them a chance, he says it isn't a huge gripe but I really think what is holding him back is how NES games look. Sure, making a 16 bit game on a system that has none of the restrictions that 16 bit hardware has it is possible to make an amazing 16 bit style game but when someone works within those restrictions and makes an amazing looking game they're an artist.

There are more checkpoints in every level in Mega Man 11 depending on the difficulty you choose.

2:26 super mario bros 1 has continues, after you go back to the tittle screen with the game over, you have to hold the a button and press start, then you will go back to the beginning of the world you stopped, and no, I didn't discovered that out myself

I can't help but feel that the people who either complain about or are completely opposed to the life system in older games must have not grown up playing them. At the time it was all we had and we played the shit out of them, got better and better and persevered until we could beat them. Sure enough when i go back after a year or so later i suck, and i have to practice my arse off again in order to get through. So many things in this day and age are so instant and full of shortcuts, and going back can be tough. It dosent mean the old is bad, its just different.

These are not bad game designs, it was what we had at the time. This is literally the best that they could do given the constraints of the systems and then learning to do more things as they created them. That's why the sequels had bigger maps, more bosses, better music, bigger sprites, sometimes even more color, parallax scrolling which was really difficult on the NES. They even implemented voices to some games. They performed wizardry on this little limited system.

I know you've repeatedly stated you respect this guy, but he's dug his own pit here. He comes off as yet another modern gamer with no attention span who blames these games from another era for his own deficiencies. He also tips his hand as yet another RU-vidr that thinks all of gaming revolves around Dark Souls. Name dropping the series does not automatically make a point valid or win an argument.

Also, those "glitching pixels" were intentional. The NES couldn't render more than like 5 sprites at a time, so to get around that, the designers would purposefully flash the pixels on and off to show more sprites. It wasn't a lack of polish. It was by design.

Gosh, I disagree with both of you. While Dan complains about bad design like all old games make all the mistakes he describes, you come back at him as if most NES games are fair and fun. Both are wrong. The way I see it, every single NES game has at least a few punishing and unfair gameplay mechanics because of a difference in game design philosophy at the time. On the one hand, NES games logically flowed from the arcade games that were designed to give you just enough excitement that when you inevitably died you would put in another quarter. They were brutally difficult so they could take your money, but otherwise they would be free so you can't blame them for wanting to get paid, just that this design philosophy does not translate well to purchasing a game and taking it home, or at least, it doesn't anymore. At the time the game industry was much smaller, fewer people with less resources playing smaller libraries of games. Nowadays when you see NES enthusiasts they own dozens or hundreds of games, but back then you usually owned a single digit number and they had to last. So they were difficult and obtuse, but you had a lot more time to spend on mastering each one. Today a dozen new games come out each week and we can't possibly play them all. And the game industry is huge with millions of people wanting to have some fun and exciting play without being beaten up and sent back to the beginning every few seconds (especially with the loading screens we often have to sit through). So good modern game design wastes less of your time and gives you more options for how you want to play so you can find what you find fun. And instead of having a game with 8 levels you have to play 100 times each before you beat them you might see 100 levels you have to try 8 times to beat. We have the resources now to make huge and varied game worlds and I love that. The NES era did the best they could with limited resources and some games of that time like SMB3 can be praised even to this day for the variety of worlds they were able to show at that time. But that is the expectation of a modern game, for it to take you places, show you things, and ideally tell a compelling story along the way. In the end I am saying that times have changed, and while I agree that old games are not designed poorly, they are designed for a niche audience that still exists but was the entire audience in the 80s. Today the audience is much wider and more accessible and this modern philosophy is far more appealing to myself and most people who want to play games.

I must say. When he mentioned how the game looked poor and glitched. He wasn't completely wrong. Games Nintendo released by themselves like Mario games had very good and well functioning looking sprites. Most other games, though, just have disappearing sprites. And we didn't complain much. Also poor sound design. Either the sounds glitched out, or just don't have any. Something Nintendo didn't had that much problem with, usually. Well, kind of just tells us how good Nintendo was.

I keep coming back to this video. Love your articulate arguments and I really agree with everything you said. Much respect! Hear hear! :D

The main issue in megaman 2 is that you can't use flashman weapon on boss latter w/o farming enemies

The beauty of a lives system is that it allows you to work within a larger frame of reference. If you have a game with unlimited lives then everything becomes isolated. Beating level 1 means that level 1 has become completely irrelevant, and then level 2 becomes your sole focus until you beat it and it becomes irrelevant, and so on... With a lives system in place you start to care about the minutia. It might be that you can usually beat level 7 with 3 lives but one time you beat it with 4, and you really feel the weight of that, you get a proper sense of flow and you start assessing how good your current "run" is. Its not just a case of "well I beat that level already, why do i have to do it again?" it's because it what matters is your ability to learn, adapt and improve at that very thing over time. Another method games allow the player to work within a larger frame of reference is with customisation and leveling up, which I do love, but I think it's unfair that lives systems aren't praised for accomplishing the same goal for a different style of game... Besides, I never understood this "getting sent back is artificial difficulty" argument because if that were the case then any game where failing sends you back even an inch does so "artificially". I don't see how dying on jump #4 of a Super Meat Boy level 100 times and having to repeat jumps #1-3 is apparently "not artificial" in that same way (or any more entertaining for that matter)

Honestly Snowman Gaming should've did some research before making that "Bad Game Design on NES Games"

"I just beat Super Mario Bros. 3 for the first time, and it filled super rewarding! I warped straight to World 8..." "...had to use savestates..." I stopped watching his video at that point. It's clear he has no idea what he's talking about.

Imagine Scrooge McDuck in Smash Bros

Thank you for making this video. I had stumbled across his video on Bad Game Design and after watching it felt like he had no idea what he was talking about. I will give his other videos a chance though based on your recommendation :)

imagine you went bowling and as soon as you got a strike you "completed bowling"

I agree with you dave but remember that the marios, castlevania, megaman, bionic commando, zeldas, metroid, etc are kind of the exception not the rule. The nes was full of bullshit unfare bad design games. The avgn has made a carreer playing them.

If he used the time stopper, then he wouldn’t be able to use it on Quick man!!!!!

Not gonna lie, after watching this video (and reading several comments), I gained a stronger appreciation for games that utilize limited lives and continues fairly well. I do think there are some bad examples of games with limited resources but there's still plenty of good ones. Castlevania 1 & 3 are some of my favourite video games to play and so is the Super Mario Bros trilogy. This was a really fun video to watch. As for Snoman Gaming's video? There were some points I agreed with but there was a lot I disagreed with and I think you did a good job debunking his points. This video deserves my liking.

This is why a lot of video game commercials back then would say things like "Can you defeat insert villain here?" or "Can you overcome insert game here?". NES games, like the arcade games before it, were so tempting because you always wanted to prove to yourself and others that you could pull through in spite of the difficulty. This is why we say "beat the game" and not "finish the game", people wanted to prove those smug-ass games wrong.

Honestly, from the footage you've provided, this reinforces the main reason I unsubbed from Snoman long ago. Most of his points and critiques came across more as whiny entitlement and an aura of "I'm bad but I'll act like it's the game's fault instead of mine" instead of actual intelligence and genuine statements on how to improve/praise for a mechanic. It was bad in his Crash video, and here it seems like it's gotten immensely worse since then. I appreciate the response video, because playing the NES games for the first time was an immense joy for me, and made me fall in love with the likes of Castlevania 1 & 3, all of the NES Mega Man games with the exception of 1 and 5, Punch Out, even Ninja Gaiden.

"Glitchy sprites" they weren't glitching, the flicker was an intentional feature to get around the NES's max sprite number restrictions.

I'm still a little confused on why the lives system is good. I like it when I finish a difficult section and getting a checkpoint after that. So then I don't have to worry about the section anymore. It allowed me to finally breath, even just for a little bit. However, if a game has one certain type of lives system, when I run out of lives, I have to start at the very beginning. Usually fine for short stages, but long stages is just infuriating There are also some games where a lives system is just pointless. There are some games where it gives you so many lives that losing one means nothing. Or the completely useless ones like freedom planet or conker live and reloaded. Where when you a life, you go back to a checkpoint. But when you lose all your lives, you get a game over screen or get booted back to the title screen, and respawn at your last checkpoint. Wait so what's the point of having a lives system Well at least we can both agree that limited continues are an outdated. Starting at the very start of the game is too punishing

Basically all his complaints come down to "I play games as a job". No shit you don't enjoy the journey when you're entertaining apes online who only care about the destination and whatever memes you spew on the way there.

Great video. To this day I have still not beat any of the Ninja Gaiden NES trillogy but I still play them a lot. They are BRUTAL in difficulty but that is part of the fun. If I could beat them easily I wouldn't be playing them 30 years later. lol

I made this comment on Snoman's video, and it bears repeating here: I feel like the streaming/speedrunning culture has a lot to do with why we see a lot of complaints about replaying portions of a game. Snoman himself cops to using warp whistles AND save states to clear SMB3, because he didn't want to get bored (and ostensibly bore his streaming audience) by replaying levels. News flash: SMB3 was not designed to be played in front of a livestreaming audience, or blasted through in a speedrun. It was designed so that you, the player, could explore the levels - many of which have their own personality and charm - and enjoy them. I don't like modern platformers because they all feel the same, which is a symptom of shrinking levels into bite-size pieces to avoid the monotony of replaying sections over and over again. I remember beating Castlevania for the first time nearly 20 years after first playing it. To that point I had complained that the game was too hard, but after beating it I realized that the challenge was fair; it was just demanding. Putting that game side by side with something like Battletoads - which *is* on the extreme side in terms of difficulty - is an unfair comparison. And comparing these games to modern exploration games like Dark Souls or Bloodborne is borderline malpractice.

This other dude just seems like he hates NES games... which is fine, but why make a video about it? Also "unjustified deaths"? The salt is real. We don't all want to be spoon fed.

Yeah, but let's be honest. There were some pretty poorly designed NES games. The best ones DID have very good game design, but there were also a lot of NES games that had poor design. The 80s was a time before game design textbooks were written. But the nice things about these games is that they have some awesome elements that aren't used very often in games anymore.

I've used RU-vid since 2008 and today I click the sub button for the first time. I've been watching tons of your videos lately, mostly kings field and dark souls. Your content is always great, humorous and detailed. Don't ever stop.

I actually have been working on something exactly like this-- and then I found this this morning, and realized that I don't think my voice is necessary, because you did it already, and better. Thanks for making this video! I think maybe instead of addressing the same arguments (with a lot of the same conclusions), I'll try to rewrite mine into something more original and separately constructive!

I really hope he watches this video. You made so many good points and I don't think Snoman really thought all of his arguments out when he made that NES video. It almost seems like he either rushed out the video or made a video about something he didn't understand fully.

What a breath of fresh air this is. Like a beautiful flower sprouting from the shit heap that was the video you're responding to.

This is what happens when you form an opinion based on no experience... you look AVGN videos and think they are legit reviews. :D

In MM2, I played that level before i got the Flashman ability. The only reason I got thro it was since I used Replays in the Anniversary Collection.

I disagree and agree with both of you

Dunkey: says NES games are hard as hell, gets tons of likes and positive comments Snoman: gets tons of hate and dislikes for saying the same thing.

The NES designs are not bad there beyond amazing and I love the designs of NES games Friday the 13TH Super Mario Bros 3,2,1 Metroid Ghoul School TMNT Megamans 1-6 Kid Iccuris Kirby Looney and Tiny Toons Disney games and many others but I can't remember them all though 💗 0u0

9:55 but he didnt complain that it was hard. why are you debating against an argument he didnt make?

Awesome video, man! One more point you could have mentioned (or if you mentioned, I didn't notice cause I'm an idiot) is the main reason I like high difficulty and the lives system: the tension you feel when fighting a difficult boss or going through a difficult part of the stage risking lose your progress and the rewarding you feel after beating it. Everytime I beat a boss in Castlevania at 0 lives and at the last of my health, every time I beat Bowser with small Mario at 0 lives and time running out, everytime I beat Turbo Tunnel on my last life, everytime I beat a robot master in Megaman with only the mega buster and at the last of my health... man, I feel on the top of the world! It makes it worth all those times I died on those parts just for that one moment of satisfaction, when I throw a punch in the air and yell "YES!" while grinning like an idiot.

For the most part I really agree with you, but on one specific point, I have to side with Sno here. There are two specific mechanics that, when combined, make for horrendous unfairness. Random enemy placement and/or spawning, and committed jump arcs. And as much as I love the older Castlevania games, they are some of the worst offenders here. See, committed jumps only work as a way to force you to plan your moves if you have the information to plan in any real way to begin with. But with never being able to be sure if an enemy was going to spawn in your way mid jump (bats and Medusa heads, anyone?!), jumps were a matter of prayer, not planning, since neither forethought nor good reflexes could save you if you got unlucky.

I think I said something similar on Snoman's vid. But it was really long but essentially, it's the challenge. Players have to be challenged in some way and be innovative about overcoming challenges. This can be in regards to challenging level design or ranging to how the emotional aspects of its narrative can get you like movies. There are challenges that people who make games put there on purpose not as a result of fairness or unfairness but so that you can be innovative about getting over whatever is in your way using whatever mechanics you have not just in your hands with the controller but also what you can identify and plan with in your brain as a sort of communication with the game. It's fun to do alone and if you do this communally or with friends it can be really fun too! Here's an anecdote I didn't share on his vid. As an example: I personally find its way more fun when you add a communal aspect to it. My friend and I last year (we're both 21 and I've collected games since I was a kid) played Zelda first quest. It was his first time! I thought it would be fun if we helped each other map the game out and give each other suggestions on how to overcome challenges i.e. where to explore next, talking about what we think we should do, communicating and listening to figure out the logic of what is on screen, what the game is trying to show us to do. We'd switch if we died in the game. It was fun! This is just one of the ways you can explore game design in games by creating a conversation around it and analyzing it while playing the game making it a more communal experience. Was it hard? Yeah. We got frustrated. But we wanted to see it through because the allure of the game was built around discovering secrets and we were allured so we enjoyed getting innovative to discover them! This can be put into any game's experience, alone or with a friend. What's the secret to getting more lives? What's the secret to beating this boss? What can we see and analyze for ourselves to figure out the context of what we're supposed to be doing and then work at it until you've mastered that secret. For me that's the allure of games, that some sort of challenge is always there no matter the difficulty, and if they have a narrative attached to it that's structured around the game that's extra icing on the cake to make it enjoyable and want to figure out more secrets to overcoming challenges with innovation!

did you just call battletoads unfair? boi it has extra lives, warps, and the turbo tunnel is actually pretty well designed. Even in the last section of the level, the walls simply lead you up and down, instead of praying that its not gonna switch on you and send a wall right at you

My favorite part is the end when Snoman gives advice on how to improve the games. Dude, they don't make those anymore, there are no new NES games coming out LOL And platformers for newer consoles have already improved in all the areas you mentioned, and so much more. So who are you actually talking to?

I've been trying to nail down some objectively bad game design principles this week. I haven't gotten there yet, but after watching videos like this and reading some Reddit threads, I've come up with a few fairly compelling symptoms of objectively bad design: 1. A player is punished for something out of their control or understanding 2. A player's time is wasted 3. A player has difficulty making a meaningful connection to the game's objective I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on these. You seem to have a very good grasp on the topic.

Another argument to be made is during the NES era, game designers were STILL learning to make games you could beat and not just go on and on or turn off once the high score was met. Designers were limited by the NES's hardware and that also given many game designers worked on arcade games, which were DESIGNED to be hard to suck your quarters, this would transfer to the home consoles at times, especially in console ports of arcade titles. The NES era saw a huge leap in game design, slowly but surely becoming more refined and ensuring the gameplay wasn't cheap but challenging and rewarding. Heck lookit the big leap in the 16bit era, the SNES and Genesis not only looked better with their games but the ability for games to tell DEEP stories and better music and soundtracks improved and well... I could go on but we've all grown up with those innovations emerging as time went on. That said, I agree with all your points Dave, while some design elements of the NES era were hard as hell, to say it was hard for the sake of hard or that every game had crummy design is a discredit to those games and their creators. Now if we're talking about Shovelware games....then yeah bad design all around but they're a special breed of bad that belong in their own category.

I feel like both sides have interesting points. Personally, I think, in hindsight, looking at all these games from a pure game designer's point of view leads to Dave's point of view, where the games are, indeed, balanced, even if the challenge isn't for everyone. However, NES games have an almost unfortunate place in gaming history because of how frequently mechanics like these were implemented and how completely strapped for another choice you'd be back when NES games were first coming out. Going back to NES games today, where we're spoiled for choice as to what kind of games we'd like to play, it's easy to lean one way or another; the games are difficult so people who aren't invested will get frustrated and see the faults, while people who are uniquely equipped for that kind of challenge will see how balanced everything is and will gladly stick with the titles. After all, the gaming climate/demographic has BROADLY expanded since the NES. Back then, really the only people playing games were those who could devote to the challenge. Now, when anyone can be a gamer, the challenges feel unfair for anyone who isn't equipped to handle them.

I wonder, how someone can make 30 minute “answer” to original video, but miss the whole point of that video

Kitamura's rules for enemy placement are really interesting, and you can see the same being applied in Dark Souls. Regarding difficulty: not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but I think game difficulty on early home computers was often due to the games being direct arcade ports; some examples retained a difficulty which was designed to keep players putting coins in the machines. You had to practice and get really good at them to beat them, and there's nothing wrong with that.

This video was not only great, but made me miss Little Nemo

Losing lives resetting progress is inferior to losing an amount of currency. That’s what he said. He never said he “didn’t understand lives in games,” he said he thinks it’s unnecessary punishment. Beating Mario or Castlevania is the game. The lives system is not “the game.”

A fair and excellent summation of pretty much my exact reaction to said video. First vid of yours I've seen, but very well done. I'll keep an eye out for more from here on out.

If anyone says that nes games have bad graphics than they do not like video games

It is very naive how you seem not to be aware that lives are here just because of the money that was needed for arcade games.

I don't know what I like more. Because lives have real meaning, but going all the way through Super Mario Bros 3 to world 8 just to game over and start the whole game again is grating. But at the same time in games like Mario Odyssey, death feels kind of pointless and is more of an annoyance than something you should be avoiding, or in newer Mario games where 1 ups are so plentiful, the concept of lives are meaningless. Idk, I think it's better off like some later games where if you game over, you go back to the beginning of a world rather than the beginning of a game. It could be annoying to get to the end of a world only to game over and be sent back to the beginning, but lives at least hold value at that point. If a game over just booted you out of the stage, then lives are again meaningless. I was born in 2000 and started off with a 64, I've recently picked up an NES and I love it. Nostalgia is not a factor

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO! ALL those points needed to be brought out about NES games. Some definitely hold up (Mario 3, Turtles 2, Kirby's Adventure, Megaman 2, 3, & 5) in every way, where others don't. You explained perfectly how there WAS GOOD GAME DESIGN BACK THEN as there is now. I watched his video first, I'm a fan of his too but this HAD to be done. PERFECT!

27:26 When is Battletoads unfair? Super difficult yes but unfair? Also the turbo tunnel isn't THAT hard. There is a rhythm to the walls and you usually have enough time to react except for maybe the jumpable walls when they appear three times in a row but they are only a problem if you jump late.