The Strange Case of 32-bit Gaming

What's in a Bit?

Ever notice that when people talk about classic video gaming, they inevitably hearken back to the days of the NES, Super NES, or Sega Genesis? Isn't that strange, considering that there were far more games released in the PlayStation/Saturn/N64 days of gaming? Don't get me wrong: There are a lot of utterly crap games in the 8-bit/16-bit era that aren't worth your time or money to play. But I personally find it strange that we don't celebrate those 32-bit pioneers in the same way.

Or maybe I don't. I feel that there's probably a reason why we don't treat them with the same reverence that we put on the "good ol' days," and that reason is... C'mon, look at the friggin' ugly things!

Source.

So very ugly

Okay, so the 16-bit era gave us machines that were finally able to draw reasonably artistically impressive and large sprites onscreen, plus added a few sprite manipulating special effects (scaling, rotation, and other tricks not found in much of 8-bit software). It was a step up, and it looked decent. The 16-bit games built on what came before, but the next generation was the messy first step into a future filled with polygons. And when you don't have a lot of polygons to work with, things quickly get grotesque.

Now, hold your bile for a second and listen to me: Games like Panzer Dragoon, Ridge Racer, and Warhawk looked amazing for their time, but take off your nostalgia goggles and look at them now. Look at the jagged edges. Look at every single object on the screen tearing at the seams. Look at those horrible flat trees and flat semi-transparent polygons pretending to be railings up walkways. Look at Lara Croft's boobs. These things are the barest, most low-res representations of real life you can imagine. At the time, they were simply groundbreaking, but nowadays can you really stand looking at that over the smooth shaded meshes of modern games, even as early as the Dreamcast?

Let's not forget the frame rates at the time, either. Most games of this era were lucky to break 30 frames per second on the original PlayStation (I know that there are exceptions so please don't bother pointing them out; we're concentrating on the majority of these games released at this time), and while a lot of titles seemed smoother on the Saturn, frame rate issues were still a problem. Combine this with the problem of drawing distance, and you have a whole generation of stuttering games that are pointy, grainy, foggy, and just unpleasant to look at.

Out of control

But looks aren't everything, right? Please remember that in the beginning of this generation there was no such thing as analog controllers (at least in the way we know them now). Sure, there were weird steering wheel devices like Namco's NGCon, and Sony's own original dual-analog flight stick controllers, but having a comfortable accurate device with those familiar twin thumbsticks was almost three years away from when the PlayStation debuted (and a year after the release of the N64). Before that, all our first-person shooters, driving games, and 3D adventure games were controlled with what were essentially just fancy Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis controllers, which were designed for 2D games and little else.

Because the Dual Analog (and later Dual Shock) controllers weren't standard when they were released, very few developers bothered to put that much stock into developing games that made the most of them. I recall that very few PlayStation games made any use of the right thumbstick, and both Nintendo and Sega seemed to be confused as to what that second stick could be used for, so they left it out completely. And though there were games that pioneered dual-stick controls in first and third -person shooters (MDK2 and ONI for the PS2 come to mind), dual-stick controls weren't really the standard or popularized until Halo was released for the original Xbox an entire generation later.

In conclusion

I could also throw in a few words about loading times, but that was a problem as late as the Xbox 360 so it's kind of unfair to harp on it with the 32-bit generations (but man, they were terrible).

So, what we're left with is an entire generation of games that are by present day standards hideous to look at and are (for the most part) no fun to control. Outside of a few remakes these games have seen very little in terms of re-release or online presence (although a super-limited selection of titles is available on the PlayStation Network), and with certain exceptions they have become all but forgotten. And when developers make those retro games on Steam, Xbox Live, or the PlayStation Network to cash in on your nostalgia, they're more likely cutesy 8 or 16-bit sprites than lumpy, poorly rendered polygons (and sorry, Unity games on Steam Greenlight don't count).

The game that ended it all: Zelda: The Ocarina of Time

Every Nintendo fan has his or her favorite Zelda game. My personal favorite is The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past on the SNES, with a close runner-up being Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, so that shows you how out of touch I am Nintendo fans. Link to the Past had everything that made the original Zelda so great and kicked it up a notch - not a mere sequel to the original game, but a re-envisioning of it: fixing old game-play elements, tidying up less-developed areas, and all the while including the player in a unique narrative that spanned the gamut of heroes and legends.

Players took the role of Link, a pointy-eared but otherwise ordinary boy living with his uncle. One dark and stormy night, Link dreams of a princess named Zelda calling for help. He awakens to find his uncle wielding the family sword and shield, shaken and preparing for a late night rescue. Despite his uncle's command to stay put, Link follows him to the castle of Hyrule, where there is clearly something evil at work. Link sneaks inside only to find his mortally wounded uncle, who passes him the sword, and tells him to rescue Zelda. It's a classic opening to a story worthy of an epic game, and lacks in the pretentiousness so many game stories are obsessed with nowadays. The rest of the game follows suit, and although challenging, it engages the player in a way that few games at the time could. This is what made it my all-time favorite Super Nintendo game.

How much difference a generation makes, eh?

I'll save a full gripe of the N64 for later, suffice it to say that it had already ruined my other favorite Nintendo franchise (Super Mario Brothers) with a collect-a-thon of poorly controlling but nonetheless pretty 3D garbage. What's more, most other N64 offerings were ugly, blocky, polygonal low-res textured messes with choppy frame-rates to match. Still, when I heard that Zelda was coming out for the N64, I was excited: I loved the four Nintendo-produced Zelda games out at that time, and the last two (Link to the Past and Link's Awakening) had streamlined the franchise into something water-tight and exciting. I paid the $49.99 for the game well in advance of its release date, which I then began to see getting pushed back before my eyes. When it finally did come out, the price had gone up twenty dollars, but I got a free hat with it (whoop-de-doo). It now stands with Mass Effect as the two most expensive games I have ever purchased, and I have never finished either of them. That's right, I never beat Zelda:TOOT, and I never will.

Here's why:

GRAPHICS: No real complaints here. Though everything does look low-poly, low-texture, and washed out in a cruel and pathetic attempt at realism, that's pretty much par for the course since developers back then decided to make everything 3D on woefully under-powered equipment.

SOUND: Terrible. There are only a few voices in the game, all of them are repeated endlessly, and most are just those annoying "girly giggles" that ten-year-old Japanese school girls make and that all Japanese men seem to find disturbingly alluring. They do a good job on ambiance for the most part, and overall the sound effects are good, but the Legend of Zelda theme is nowhere to be found in this game. AT ALL. I'm sorry, but I'm not tired of it yet, and it's exclusion makes the game seem less epic and more malaise. I remember when Link pulled the Master Sword(tm) from the stone in A Link to the Past, and when the Zelda theme started afterwards I felt charged and ready. Almost all of the music in this game is stolen from A Link to the Past, but they didn't include the most important song, and I can't forgive it for that.

STORY: Remember when I was discussing A Link to the Past's story earlier? Most non-orphan people can relate to losing a loved one or a father figure. Young Link being left alone in a world that is out to destroy him is a powerful statement.

Now, contrast that to Zelda: The Ocarina of Time where you are avenging a tree. Let me state that for you again, just in case you think that was a typo: Link is avenging a talking tree when he sets out on his quest. There's nothing even remotely analogous to this in real life. I've had plants that have died, sure, but I've never cried out on the dark precipice to the night and said "by the power of Thor(tm), I will avenge you my hibiscus!" Not once. The game tries to make up for this by having Link live with a bunch of "lost boys" type elves, who are all pretty annoying to begin with, like self-sufficient first-graders. The tree is supposed to be the wise father figure, but it's a tree and can't move, so one has to wonder how good its parenting skills actually are.

In his journey to stop the "evil man" that is causing all the trouble in Hyrule, Link meets a plethora of friendly characters that basically amount to the enemy races in the previous games. Rather than fight them directly, now they just give Link pointless and irritating quests to waste his time. Personally I liked the earlier versions.

I struggled to keep my interest up until Link got the Master Sword(tm), the pulling out of which sends Link forward in time and ages him into an N*Sync-style douche bag complete with fingerless elbow-length gloves and an earring. This is where the game lost me because far be it for me to question the sword making him go forward in time, am I to understand that "young adult" Link has the diminutive mind of an eight-year-old? Or, if he's spent the last ten years in limbo training to become a master fighter, then why doesn't he know how to do anything significantly different than accessorize his wardrobe?

I still struggled on hoping that there would be some payoff to the whole thing, but by the time the fairy had told me to listen for the 79,898, 636,873rd time I just stop caring.

Ah yes, let's get to that:

FAIRY: Navi is to the player as Kryptonite is to Superman and good taste is to 50 Cent - they all want it to go away, but as soon as they come into contact it can be lethal to them. I would like to know what wonderful drugs the design "teem" (not to be confused with "team," as in people working together would eventually figure out that this was a bad idea) were sniffing when they decided to put a little voice in the game that pops in every other minute to let the player know that they're supposed to be going to the castle to see the princess. The problem is, it takes about five minutes to reach the castle which means that in an even number of minutes you'll hear it twice, and at the odd worst, three before you reach the castle gate. Once you have reached the castle and are attempting to navigate the streets to find the princess, the fairy then proceeds to tell you to find the princess. There isn't even an option to turn it off! I'm sure when gamers (note: not Nintendo fan boys) began to complain about this Shigeru Miyamoto just packed his ears with some $1000 bills that were conveniently lying around.

GAMEPLAY: Some would argue that TOOT's control scheme is revolutionary, I argue that it is convoluted. It's obvious that they were trying to do too much with what control they had, so they decided to take a share of it away from the player. Typically, there is one button that takes multiple actions whenever Link is in a certain position. While this does make the game easier to play on some level, it often devolves into trying to position Link so that he can access the one spot where the button changes actions.

The game's flow also seems less open than in the older games. The original Legend of Zelda and Zelda II were all about exploration. Zelda: A Link to the Past continued that tradition to an extent, allowing players to move around the environments at their leisure to look for items that might help them navigate to more complicated dungeons. This Zelda is strictly by-the-book: An item that you find in a dungeon will HAVE to be used to get to the boss, and will HAVE to be used to make the boss vulnerable so that you can hurt it. As before, you need to collect three things to get the Master Sword(tm), and there are three different temples that you must enter to find them. You can't move on to the next dungeon until you've completed the one that you're on. The roads to get to these dungeons are just that: roads. You can't deviate too much from the prescribed course, and even if there is more virtual landscape than in previous Zelda games it seems constrained. I mean, why even put the Hookshot(tm) in the game if the stupid thing can only attach to a few sparse surfaces throughout the map? It sometimes makes going forward difficult becuase the player has been trained not to rely on it because of its almost utter uselessness - they only use it as a last resort!

Finding heart containers has become more of a chore than a feeling of discovery, involving the ironically time-consuming task of travelling in time, and having the right item at just the right time, and just pads out what is essentially a really short game.

Battles are many, but significant battles are few, predictable, and not very interesting. Bosses are cheap, moving out of camera range and striking distance just to frustrate the player, who has to wait for "just the right moment" to strike, every time, because they have no inherently vulnerable spots. I remember in the Link to the Past, finding just the right weapon to tackle a difficult boss was fun, because bosses could be hurt by multiple weapons. With the advent of the 3D Zelda games, this seems to be a thing of the past.

OVERALL: I think that the worst thing about this game is that so many people like it better than the superior old ones, and that the 3D downgrade to the graphics was so immediately popular. So well was this game received that recent releases of 3D Zelda games all follow the same framework, with almost no originality other than art style or what gimmick Link uses to solve puzzles and navigate the world. Zelda: TOOT made me far more excited about Wind Waker, but after becoming similarly disappointed by it all I can say is this: if I want to experience the feelings of awe and exploration that I got from the original games, I now play Bethesda's Elder Scrolls series. It might lack some of Zelda's polish, but it's a helluva lot more fun to play.