Honestly, this isn't good even for 1912. I'd rank it as a rather average production for its time: better than just filming a stage performance such as "Queen Elizabeth" or the "Richard III" films (1911 and 1912), for example, but certainly far short of "The Cameraman's Revenge" (Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora) or "Desdemona" (For Åbent Tæppe), both of which remain intelligently conceived despite having been made in 1912. Nor does this "Nicholas Nickleby" demonstrate anything close to the advanced film technique of D.W. Griffith, whose 1912 output included "The Musketeers of Pig Alley" and "An Unseen Enemy". Indeed, average seems to be a fair remark.
To fit Dickens' long novel into 20 minutes on screen, obviously there is a lot of condensing. In this respect, the filmmakers here do well to construct a coherent, if dull, narrative. Moreover, if this had been a feature-length production, as there were a few being made by 1912 (although not so many in the US), the film probably would be rather intolerably boring based on its dated production values and acting and severely limited role for the camera. Every indoor scene here takes place in a two-walled corner from a fixed, long view camera position—a very confining space, for which the purpose was surely to keep set construction costs low. The stage performance scene is the worst.