[QUOTE=Michael Danehy]Shouldn't the CD-I Zelda game be considered the black sheep? At least Zelda 2 has lots of fans. I think just about everyone hates the CD-I game (not that many people have played it anyway... I never have...).[/QUOTE]
No. Most Zelda fans either don't know they ever happened, or just don't consider them part of the official series (similar to Nintendo's stand on the issue).
[QUOTE=Atarifever]I understand all that, but regarding the way quests are given out and the interaction with NPCs, this one has a lot more in common with the average game in the series than the original does. It also has a lot of platforming similar to that seen in the later games. That's why I'm wondering why it's called the "black sheep" when it, in fact, established some of the more important conventions of the series. Can't the original be considered a "black sheep" in that it doesn't meet those conventions? As well, if I were looking for one game in the series to call a "black sheep", I'd think "Four Swords" was far more different from the series than this one is. Multiplayer, cross system gameplay, with linear level selection seems much further from the norm of the series than Zelda 2, with it's single player dungeon and field roaming, does.[/QUOTE]
In every other Zelda game, platforming elements are extremely minimal, especially in the 2D variety. The 3D variety has some platforming elements only because it is near impossible to avoid that kind of gameplay in a Zelda-style adventure game in 3D space.
I am not saying that Zelda 2 doens't have elemtns that are copied in later games, especially Ocarina of Time. Shadow Link for instance shows up in OoT in the Water Temple, and each of the Sages in OoT are named after the towns in Zelda 2. Zelda 2 also first mentioned the Triforce of Courage, and associated it with Link as a birthright almost (as the symbol on his left hand). Still, those are stylistic elements and not so much gameplay elements. In truth, even though it does indeed play a lot like a Zelda game at least in terms of how exploration and puzzle solving happens, I think Zelda 2 is only minimally like any other Zelda game. That's part of what I love about it really.
I think Zelda 2 is a good game, (with great music!), but another downer for people might be its difficulty, easily the hardest Zelda game ever made.
Its a good thing when the Zelda series switches gears, and I think their due for another curveball. I remeber Myamoto (spelling?) saying TP was the last (home console?) Zelda game of its kind, and I thinks thats a good thing. I think I would take smaller doses of Zelda on a more regular basis than waithing for the big game to come every 5 years or so.
[QUOTE=Adamant][QUOTE=m0zart][QUOTE=Michael Danehy]Shouldn't the CD-I Zelda game be considered the black sheep? At least Zelda 2 has lots of fans. I think just about everyone hates the CD-I game (not that many people have played it anyway... I never have...).[/QUOTE]
No. Most Zelda fans either don't know they ever happened, or just don't consider them part of the official series (similar to Nintendo's stand on the issue).
[/QUOTE]
Plus, the majority of the haters have never played the game anyway, just seen some pictures of the cutscenes. It's cool to hate these games.[/QUOTE]
Have you tried it? Is it decent?
So I beat Horsehead today and am learning the desert area. Having had to figure out that to see the second wise man, who gives you the jump spell to make it to the desert, I needed to get the trophy back for the town first, and then having to find the candle so I could go and get said trophy, requiring me to go through the one dark cave blind, certainly felt like a Zelda sequence to me. I mean look at how confusing that sounds. If instead of the "jump spell" he had given me the feather it would all seem exactly like every other Zelda game up to this point.
[QUOTE=Adamant]I own the two platformers, and I've played Zelda's Adventure - they're not that bad at all. Yes, the cutscenes are silly, but there's a surprisingly solid game hidden underneath them.
---CLIP---
Not having tried Zelda's Adventure much, I can't say much about it, but from what I've played, it's a pretty good adventure game in the traditional Zelda style, just with less swordfighting and more magic.[/QUOTE]
I really disagree with that summation. I've played both of the original two platforming games more than once, and I think they are despicable not only as Zelda games, and not only as platforming games, but as games in general.
[QUOTE=Adamant]Plus, the majority of the haters have never played the game anyway, just seen some pictures of the cutscenes. It's cool to hate these games.[/QUOTE]
I've said this about many games in the past. I happen to be a defender of "E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial" on the 2600 for instance. I've had to battle that one with many an adamant gamer who insist that it was the worst game ever made, though it often comes out that either gamer never played the game or only played it for a few minutes.
And yes, I find that to be the case with the CD-i Zelda games as well. Before I actually played these games, I was apt to believe the hype around them, but as time went on I started to realize that many of those criticizing these games never heard of them until someone told them about them, and at that point, they loved the hate-em-history surrounding the titles. Hence, I am convinced that many haters have never played the games. Some of the MAY have seen the cut-scenes on Youtube or something like that, but few have ever played a moment of the games themselves.
But here's the deal. I've given them a chance. In fact, I gave them more than an equal chance. I went into these games thinking they might be new E.T. material. Since I am known among some at Gamespot as a guy who likes games other people hate, I was actually sort of hoping I could give these games my support as overlooked gems.
Now that I've played them, I know I can't. I happily join the haters. See the reviews I wrote on those games, posted to this website:
"Zelda's Adventure" is only slightly another story. On the Gamespot system, for a review I've been writing for a while now, I expect it to get around 5.x, in the mediocre range overall. I actually intend to play through that one at least one more time before I publish a final review of the game, but I am still pretty sure that it's not going to get any higher than a 5.x. For this site, I might give it a D or a D+. Depends on how I can map the game's rating I give on Gamespot to the A-F rating system.
The one thing I hated about Zelda II is what Link looked like on the map screen. He walks like a ballereina. Couldn't they make him look cooler than that?
Return to “Video Games General”