Re-evaluating what's "new" and what's "classic"

[Nightmare]

I know we have had many internal arguments about this, which constitutes new and which constitutes classic, over tilesets, nth Quest contests and such.

But now with Super Mario Maker being released, we know where Nintendo as a company stands on this, and it kind of makes Zelda Classic look behind, for better or worse.

What do you people think about this?

-James

[Samer]

It doesn't matter too much, just as long as coherence is in check.

Nintendo's a "Corporation", so they have all the resources necessary to do things way more efficiently than we ever can.

Classic to me is like SNES era and below, these opinions are subjective. Some one could consider PS2 generation as classic since software/games evolve at an astonishing rate.
Don't feel bad man, I'm pretty sure Nintendo uses ideas from fan developers to improve their own IPs. No one, and I mean no one, in their right mind would make anything from scratch.

That's what Software Change Requests are for, they are used widely in the industry.

Edit: Granted they are properly documented and planned accordingly

[Jaydeadone]

Well, I would say classic was the cart era...64 and below, this however also includes the original Playstation as well.
Unlike cars or music, I don't think classic can refer to a specific amount of years when it comes to games. I believe it would refer more or less to the generation of systems and their capabilities.
After this generation of systems, I would call Playstation 2 and whatever came out during those times (system wise) would fall into the classic category and with the next gen after that would bring the PS3 and so on....

That's just my take on things....

J~

[Nightmare]

Well, what we've done with like the nth Quest Contests is done.

But we had been keeping a very strict "to the NES" cartridge rule when we were making the contests, keeping NES limitations and stuff.

Well, according to what we saw of Super Mario Maker in their Mario 1 levels, by our standards, Demo tileset, Firerobes, Windrobes, Crackterocks, and large overworld tiles would be child's play.

I wanted to bring this up because it's obvious in Nintendo's eyes AGN in official contests is being too conservative. What do you guys think?

-James

[Samer]

I'm sure if Nintendo didn't have the limitations they had back when the NES went out, it would be a lot more different.

[Jaydeadone]

Conservative or smart? This is basically taking the components of Nintendo's 'dirt' and making a similar, but custom 'vegetable'.
I would say this is just a very cautious and smart way of going about being creative.
I own games that are 'Nintendo' games, but are NOT licensed by Nintendo. (BTW, they are worth 'bank')
This is besides the point. Nintendo; as much as they may have a department that worries about this crap...I doubt it really compares to the department that keeps the corporate hackers from seeing their next idea. Heh, or the department that searches the net.....and is stealing yours.
J~

[ZoriaRPG]

It doesn't matter too much, just as long as coherence is in check.

Nintendo's a "Corporation", so they have all the resources necessary to do things way more efficiently than we ever can.

Classic to me is like SNES era and below, these opinions are subjective. Some one could consider PS2 generation as classic since software/games evolve at an astonishing rate.
Don't feel bad man, I'm pretty sure Nintendo uses ideas from fan developers to improve their own IPs. No one, and I mean no one, in their right mind would make anything from scratch.

That's what Software Change Requests are for, they are used widely in the industry.

Edit: Granted they are properly documented and planned accordingly

In terms of 'classic' tilesets, I'd say anything NROM, NCROM, MMC1, or equivalent, in appearance. If the MMC3, MMC5, or those insane Mapper-90 chips could do it, or if it looks like something from the SuFami (or newer), it ceases to be a classic tileset. The real point of being a 'classic' tileset game, is if it uses the original NES/FC graphics, with, or without recolouring. if not, then you need to evaluate it based on the tileset design, where four-colour sets (e.g. Koten) fall into the 'possibly classic' category, but sixteeen-colour tilesets, do not.


If you want to base it on whether the NES/FC could do it, you should be aware that the physical HW capabilities of the system were never fully realised in any licensed game. Look at newer Chinese pirate games, and see for yourself. Even that Mapper-90 'Super Mario World' game will cause your eyes to explode... For the record, it is possible to display 410-ish unique colours, and it is technically possible to display all of them at one time.

Thus, if you don't want such entries to border on SuFami/SNES aesthetics, you should establish hard limits by the technology needed to display the graphics. MMC3 is a decent hard-limit, because it was the most common of the more advanced mappers; while MMC5, or Konami VRC6/7 would be an absolute limit for licensed games.

The tricky part, is educating users as to what the capabilities are, for the advanced mapper chips. Very fre ZQuest users will even comprehend the technical specs, to translate them into designing palettes, sprites, and layers.

[Jaydeadone]

I guess I waaaaaay missed 'the point'. To this, I apologize...I have been busy and tired....still it is no excuse...
I will be more careful next time I comment.....
J~

[bigjoe]

Nintendo has never directly expressed where they stand on Zelda Classic. For all we know they could draw a great deal of inspiration from ZC.

Just the fact that they are making a Mario editor alone says that they acknowledge the community's desire to create, play, and share levels. I would take a less pessimistic stance and say that Nintendo is learning from fan games. So I wouldn't say that ZC is behind, but rather that it paved the way.

I can see your concern though. Nintendo is more focused on making a family friendly, fun editor. Its in their best interests to have new features and fun stuff to play with. Zelda Classic is more focused on hardcore Zelda fans who want to make a Zelda experience. Obviously there is going to be a shift in what is regarded as 'classic'.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

In actuality, while Nintendo no doubt know's about ZC, if they were going to do something inspired by it, it would have most likely happened years ago when it was far more popular and being reported in magazines.

Mario Maker was more than likely inspired by Sony's Little Big Planet franchise, which is all about making and sharing 2D side scrolling levels, just like Mario Maker........And after Sony themselves ripped off Super Smash Bros, I guess Nintendo said "Why not? If they sue, we'll countersue."

But yeah, it probably wasn't ZC inspired. I'm not sure why you think it looks conservative compared to Mario Maker though (other than the ability to use more eras worth of graphics, but you can't be talking about that alone).