Le Communard Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Here's the translation thread... I'm not sure if you wanted gameplay footage or something though .-. No, the translation thread is great. Thanks a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserPhoenix Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 By your account, no game made before 1992 is good, then. I don't think that was >Quite< what he was getting at there. The controls themselves felt sluggish (at least to me, skidding 3 feet wasn't fun at all) and having to trudge through every cave, forest, and dungeon to get back to where you were before was really freaking tedious, even then (RPG's were starting to come onto the horizon, and the "save" feature on DQ 2 saved where you were, and your experience(and yes, I know this wasn't exactly a "rpg" but it had RPG elements, so comparison is there)). Personally, I won't EVER call Adventure of Link the >BEST< Zelda game ever... but it's certainly not the worse (those spots remain filled by the terrible CD-i games, shame on Phillips for EVER releasing those), and I occasionally pick it up and play it because it's such an important milestone in the Zelda Universe, but, overall, I didn't think the game was all that great, and will probably be only worshipped by the cult followers. ~KaiserPhoenix On an off note, I want to say I loved Star Tropics, which was like a weird child of Zelda 1 and 2, yet had it's own thing going for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Ostrich Posted December 10, 2008 Author Share Posted December 10, 2008 I don't think that was >Quite< what he was getting at there. You are correct. That would have only been what I meant if every game produced before 1992 was an adventure game with RPG elements that held on to illogical arcade trappings. I was not meaning to imply that lives were a bad thing, but that they worked for certain games due to their design. A good design choice for Zelda II would be to have infinite lives and to throw the player back to the beginning of the dungeon (or even back to the nearest town) after every death. Also, there should be no experience penalty for dying. It would make the game substantially less frustrating. That's kinda how Zelda I worked, and that game is nothing short of amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Spoon Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Whoever, brought up the dungeon music, that's a great point. I really hadn't thought about it since I last played it, but as soon as it was brought up, the music came rushing back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Spoon Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) Personally, I won't EVER call Adventure of Link the >BEST< Zelda game ever... but it's certainly not the worse (those spots remain filled by the terrible CD-i games, shame on Phillips for EVER releasing those), and I occasionally pick it up and play it because it's such an important milestone in the Zelda Universe, but, overall, I didn't think the game was all that great, and will probably be only worshipped by the cult followers. I doubt you've played the CD-i Zeldas. I haven't either, but at least I don't complain about games I haven't played. And I fully intend to give them a shot someday. Also, IIRC, don't hookers restore your health in GTA? Well, Zelda II did it first. Edited December 10, 2008 by General Spoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodykitty Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 No, that's the point. Zelda II is BADLY designed. I already went over this: One, the lives system are an archaic old standby that only belongs in arcade games (not adventure games). And two, throwing you all of the way back to the beginning of the game and forcing you to trek your way through slogs of unnecessary (and arbitrary) battles and caves and the like are bad game design.You get items along the way to allow you to access shortcuts to get to places faster. The lives system has players PLAN out their route in order to make the best use of lives, something they wouldn't do if they had infinite lives.Not to mention you actually get to keep whatever levels, items, and doors unlocked if you lose in a dungeon, and by that point you know the fastest way there. The game would be far too easy if it didn't have a lives system. Also, the final palace has the longest trek to get to it, but once you're in the final palace, IT'S HOME FREE, because the game actually lets you start out at the beginning of the palace even if you lose all of your lives. It's arcade-like, because NEWS FLASH: the Nintendo was all about having arcade like experiences at the seat of your home back then. Zelda II isn't 2008, where the arcade scene is pretty much dead for most games except fighters, driving games, and rhythm games. That, and the combat sucks due to Link having such a short sword. If it were longer, I could better appreciate some of the subtleties of the system.Yes, the subtleties that would completely disappear because you can snipe from a long range. You can already jump up and completely rip apart Iron Knuckles by hitting their head over and over, and you can already use down thrust to kill any unarmored enemy in the game with ease. You DON'T need a long ranged sword at all.That is, when the platforming is actually good like it is in SMB Lost Levels and Ghosts and Goblins. But you see, Link's so big that it feels clunky. It's harder to dodge enemy fire in this game than it is in Castlevania for the NES. And Simon's no acrobat. Neither is Arthur.You have a shield for a reason, you know. Neither Mario, Simon, or Arthur get a shield. Link does. Link can block most of the projectiles in the entire game with his shield, and there's even a spell that requires you to reflect shots to kill a boss. The only projectiles that can't be blocked are from enemies that you'll NEVER find in front of a pit, ever.Most of the platforming challenges are extremely easy too. They just require getting past the enemies. Kill, then jump over. There really isn't anything hard about that, regardless of Link's floaty controls. You even get two spells that can help you. That's kinda how Zelda I worked, and that game is nothing short of amazing.Zelda 1 was a completely different style of game. It was a top down where dungeons took much longer to explore, and where resources were much tighter. Zelda I also started you out with fewer hearts if you died, and if you used your potions or lost all of your bombs, you had to go out and get more anyway. In Zelda II, dying recovers your life and Magic, and it even starts you out in the middle of the dungeon as opposed to the beginning. Lives definitely balance that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserPhoenix Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 I doubt you've played the CD-i Zeldas. I haven't either, but at least I don't complain about games I haven't played. I'll admit, no, I haven't, but I've seen enough actual gameplay footage and crap assed cut scenes to more than fill that void. And, personally, FE3, I would have preferred if they would have stuck with top-down, simply because they were easier to deal with and play (which is probably why A Link to the Past (the best Zelda game in my mind) reverted back to the top down perspective and evolved it). That's my two cents, take it or leave it, matters to me not, as I've stated before, Zelda 2 was a big milestone for several reasons, but it seemed to take a step back in comparison to the original, IMO. ~KaiserPhoenix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 It's hard. It's the 'black sheep' of the series. At least the gaming got better afterwords, amirite? if Zelda II was the "black sheep" of the series, where does that leave the Zelda titles for the CD-i? or are they so fail that nobody mention those anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posaydal Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 if Zelda II was the "black sheep" of the series, where does that leave the Zelda titles for the CD-i?or are they so fail that nobody mention those anymore According to one site the CDi games weren't so bad. While they weren't amazing, and probably pretty average he rates them better than AoL. Most people have never played them to comment but just see the laughable, nightmare inducing cutscenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 According to one site the CDi games weren't so bad. While they weren't amazing, and probably pretty average he rates them better than AoL.Most people have never played them to comment but just see the laughable, nightmare inducing cutscenes. wow, someone who doesn't actually bash on those games! :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbguy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Don't post then, it doesn't add anything to the thread. SFTU, Zelda II was a great game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ϲharlie Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 SFTU, Zelda II was a great game! I'm not even sure why you quoted that post because it has nothing to do with whether or not Zelda II is a good game. In any case, this topic has been dead for more than a month, and that post added nothing. No need to keep it around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts