Playing this game non-stop for a day. It's bloody awesome. My only gripe is the damn save system, but naturally I liberally use save slots.
I can't quite understand why this is everyone's least favorite Zelda. It took me several tries to appreciate Ocarina, and I still don't get Link to the Past. But this is fantastic action-role-playing ahead of its time.
Simple: Because it's hardly like any of the other Zelda games. Though most people tend to forget that when it was made, Zelda I was the only other Zelda game, and the franchise was still solidifying its identity.
I happen to think it's a pretty great game, but it just got too damn hard for me at the end trying to play it on a real system.
Because of the save system, right? The frustration of going ALL the way back to a remote dungeon through 3 others... I guess it's best enjoyed on an emulator, like most console games actually. I hate, hate, HATE limited, artificial save options!
That's funny, I feel like a bad person every time I use a save feature, even though it's built into the game.
Игги Друге Wrote:
I have almost the same feeling. I don't mind using save features, but I tend to avoid quicksaving. If the game allows me to save automatically whenever I reach a certain part (for instance, at the start of each stage), I prefer to let the game do it for me.
The last time I tried to play Zelda 2 was years before I played Demon's Souls. Maybe I'll have a better time of it now.
I can only guess that Zelda "fans" decided that in order for a Zelda game to be a Zelda game it needs esoteric crate shoving obstacles. That's the only way I can understand how people could classify Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword as good games.
YID YANG Wrote:
When the saves allowed by a game are due to the designer's choice and not to inborn technical limits, altering that by an emulator or anywyse else alters the gaming experience as it was wished from the designer to be. It's a little blameable to do that.. I guess :d
If I played those old console games with their "proper" saving systems, I'd lose hours upon hours of my life on replaying areas I have already beaten. Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of artificially pumping up challenge by forcing the player to do that?
God bless the inventors of emulators and save states. God bless game designers that do not think that moronic repetition is fun. Curse limited save features forever and ever! Amen.
(Edited by Adzuken (339), May 11, 2012)Re: So this is the black sheep?..
Adzuken (339), May 11, 2012
I'm going to say the same thing I do any time one of these topics comes up, "Ugh." I see more people defending this title than I've ever seen condemning it. In my opinion the game is pretty big mess. I have no idea who thought it was a good idea having extra lives set in static places around the world that you can only pick up once, then they're gone forever. I've played through the game more than once now and despite every attempt to appreciate it, I still find it to be unsatisfying, tedious, and utterly outclassed by so many other games on the system's outstanding library.
Most of all, though, I can't stand the game's music. Ugh, that slow, grating tremolo sound looping over and over again, making a sorry attempt to sound anything like music. It literally makes me uncomfortable to listen to it.
YID YANG Wrote:
While I get where you're coming from, it's not a sentiment I can get behind. Player punishment is where a game's challenge comes from. When you get sent back to the beginning of the stage, that's the game telling you, "You suck, do it right this time," and until you've gained the skill to actually complete the area, you're going to have to keep practicing it over and over again. While I understand why this might sound unappealing, circumventing the punishment for your mistakes is like saying you only play Doom with god-mode on because dying is so inconvenient.
When you get sent back to the beginning of the stage, that's the game telling you, "You suck, do it right this time,"
I already did it right the first time. If I miss the 15th jump or get killed by the 30th enemy there is no reason, no logic, and no human explanation for forcing me to make the preceding 14 jumps and kill the preceding 29 enemies again. It makes as little sense as punishing a kid for every bad thing he ever did every time he does something bad.
While I understand why this might sound unappealing, circumventing the punishment for your mistakes is like saying you only play Doom with god-mode on because dying is so inconvenient.
I can save anywhere in Doom. There is no reason to play it in god mode. Also, it has selectable difficulty levels. Two features every game should have.
Come on Lynx, you teach music. If you get a note wrong, does that mean you played the tune right?
It's true that many of these games were designed for kids, and therefor were designed to last a long time because the kid will probably only get 3-4 games a year. On the other hand, shouldn't you enjoy just playing the game? If you're only playing the game to see what new thing will appear, then why are you even playing a game? You've created a huge backlog for yourself for the purpose of adding or reviewing games on Moby, and I think that might be a really bad way to experience these games.
(Edited by YID YANG (162398), May 11, 2012)Re: So this is the black sheep?..
YID YANG (162398), May 11, 2012
Come on Lynx, you teach music. If you get a note wrong, does that mean you played the tune right?
I don't think it's a valid comparison. We try to play tunes right so that others may enjoy it. We play games for ourselves. I want to have fun when I play games, not suffer because some kids could only play 3-4 games and the designers decided the best way to extend playing time would be to limit saving.
You've created a huge backlog for yourself for the purpose of adding or reviewing games on Moby, and I think that might be a really bad way to experience these games.
On the contrary. Like I said, god bless the inventor of emulators and save states :)
YID YANG Wrote:
If someone gives you a test and you flunk it, you don't just get to redo the questions you did wrong, you take the test again. In games, you're typically given a life bar to make up for any smaller mistakes that you make, but if you're sent back to the beginning of a level because you fell in a hole, it's because you're not supposed to fall in holes. If you really have the skill to play the game, then you will jump over not just some of the holes, but all of the holes.
Again, you can play games however you want, but there is a reason that they're designed the way they are.
and this one's designed to sell Nintendo Power. ;)
(Edited by 雷堂嬢太朗 -jotaro.raido- (46719), May 11, 2012)Re: So this is the black sheep?..
雷堂嬢太朗 -jotaro.raido- (46719), May 11, 2012
Some people prefer to play games for the challenge, while some people prefer to play them for the experience. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with either preference, and likewise there's nothing wrong with wanting to see what's on the other side of the fence.
If he's enjoying the game, who has any right to tell him he's doing it wrong?
雷堂嬢太朗 -jotaro.raido- Wrote:
I'm not trying to tell him he's playing it wrong, I'm merely trying to demystify the value of punishment through repetition. I'm not chastising, I'm debating.
If someone gives you a test and you flunk it, you don't just get to redo the questions you did wrong, you take the test again
Somehow I try to avoid such comparisons as much as possible. I'm really too old for taking tests now :)
You guys keep comparing playing games to something else. In my eyes, games are meant to be fun, period. Like Jotaro said, games can be enjoyed for a variety of reasons, and being repeatedly tested is not my idea of fun.
YID YANG Wrote:
Quoted for truth. A challenge which only comes from the abundance of a save feature is bad challenge.
I loved that game until I hit a cave-dungeon maze -- pick one of three entrances, fight some enemies, then pick another of three sub-entrances, fight some more enemies, then pick another of three sub-sub-entrances... pick wrong and you get to fight your way back. The combinatorial wrong paths potential stopped me cold.
(And yet, faced with similar complications in SMB1 and Super Mario World, I grit my teeth and brute forced through it.)
Our attitude when set before hardship, penalties for mistakes, rewards for success, concerns the core of our mind's psychology, view of reality, and character. I think that there shall be games for each of us, ranging from Treasure and Cave works that I love to Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and the heaps of troubleless games released everyday especially on mainstream game systems like smartphones, and it makes very little sense to tell each other «I am right, you are wrong». Nevertheless, I love to respect the game designer's and director's wish and hope about how the player will experience and discover their game: this is something that made sense when games weren't projected by teams of one or 2 thousand people, of course, and mirrored a view while having a distinct personality.
Regarding The Adventure of Link, it was one of a kind, a courageous attempt to innovate the franchise, unwelcomed and then abandoned. I don't deem it as a masterwork but I also would not say that many NES games in its same genre "outclassed" it: The Battle of Olympus is the only one I can recall to outclass it indeed.
I'm on Oleg's side. Usually I just go for the experience. I like to be challenged, but if I get punished too much I'll just get annoyed. Particularly if it are insta-death traps.
There are exceptions of course such as VVVVVV recently, but there the part that you have to do over is always less than a minute of work. If I have to go through entire levels or huge sections again (or worse watch un-skipable cutscenes 10 times over >:( ) I'm not enjoying the game anymore.
Perhaps a larger gripe I have with limited save systems is the fact that I cannot stop playing whenever I want (or have to) without losing progress.
Perhaps a larger gripe I have with limited save systems is the fact that I cannot stop playing whenever I want (or have to) without losing progress
Exactly. It maddens me that I can't just exit the game normally and do something else whenever I want. I remember I left a console turned on for two days, to avoid losing 3+ hours progress, just because the game didn't allow me to save in time before I had to leave my house for that time period.
What I don't understand is how come every single adventure game allowed you to save your progress whenever you wanted, even though replaying an adventure segment is not that big a deal after you figured out the puzzles. But for some reason console action games, where every moment is often nerve-wrecking, force you to go through these ordeals over and over again.
Is playing a good FPS a less challenging, less intense experience than playing a good platformer? Hardly. Yet most FPSs allow you to save when you want to, while platformers don't. Why?
YID YANG Wrote:
Because death and failure is supposed to meaningful. If falling off a cliff into a bottomless pit just drops you back at the cliff edge then there was no reason for that cliff to be there in the first place. If failure does not carry a penalty then failure has become an archaic system and should just be removed from the game. I'm not saying that every game makes the best use of failure as a game system, but it is still a game system.
I do agree that every game should have a way of turning the game off at any time with no penalty.
YID YANG Wrote:
This is also due to technical limitations. Adventures ran on computers, which had access to floppies or hard drives built in. Platformers ran on consoles, on which saving games was usually only possible on built-in battery backed RAM, which made each game much more expensive in production. This only changed with the availability of cheap flash memory in the mid-1990s, and console games since then have had much better save support.
Right. So in the end all this had little to do with player-punishing philosophy and a lot to do with technical limitations. Which means that saving anywhere doesn't go against the designers' intentions. It just makes playing those games more fun.
Speaking of console saving: why didn't more games use passwords? There is nothing easier than assign a password to every level in a platformer. No need for physical saving.
Terok Nor Wrote:
This technical argument is probably an important factor, but I am not sure it is the most important.
While platformers have always been more prevalent on consoles, there have been a good deal of platformers on computers, and yet most of the time, they did not feature the option to save games.
I believe design choice (as part of the game difficulty) is at least as important as technical limitations.
I don't know how large save games from (computer) platform games would be. I always supposed it would be quite large and therefore was the reason why some games like Prince of Persia allowed you to save but the saved game, when loaded, would only bring you back at the start of the level you saved in and with the time you had remaining at that time.
Also, there are some games that could have used password systems to at least let you restart at a specific level (and maybe a precise number of lives). But they did not.
There are some interesting examples to read on tvtropes, such as those under Check Point Starvation and Nintendo Hard:
Thought experiment: what does a PoP level need to store in its saved game? Time remaining, sword flag, total player heart containers, and places and health of all enemies -- whether potions have been drunk or not, and which loose tiles have been smashed. Also time remaining on all timed gates.
Lots, but if set with simple binary flags, still less than 1K I'm sure.
Commander Keen, Jill of the Jungle, and a few other PC platformers allowed you to save anywhere. If those games could do it, then any game could. Everything else is just excuses :)
I've just got into the game and coming from somebody who has little experience with Zelda series except for the first one (which I beat 3-4 months ago), this one feels like a very strange beast indeed. It is fun and the combat is much more dynamic than in the first title, but the sense of exploration is not as strong and solving the dungeons so far has been less exciting (I'm in the second palace at the moment). I don't really like spawning back in the original position whenever I die, especially in dungeons, but so far it hasn't been exceptionally infuriating for me to backtrack to the dungeon (and unlike Oleg, I am more masochistic in that way).
We'll see how it goes, but at this point, I don't think it holds a candle to the original version. I am not disappointed in the new gameplay system, but rather the somewhat clunky execution of it.
Okay, I have to admit, this game is starting to rear its ugly head. I made it to the boss of the second palace, but got outright humiliated (at least I managed to spot his weakness, but I was stupid by casting the Jump spell and thus making it much more difficult.)
But the main gripe is that, at least from what I've seen, the game promotes grinding. Since the experience points reset to zero when you die, you definitely don't want to risk it with the more dangerous enemies, and as such, the only choice is grinding with low-level enemies. While this wouldn't be so offputting in a JRPG (of that vintage), but coming straight after Zelda 1, this is a frickin' insult.
But the main gripe is that, at least from what I've seen, the game promotes grinding
It's an early RPG. Of course it promotes grinding. I don't know any other RPG from that time that doesn't.
While this wouldn't be so offputting in a JRPG (of that vintage), but coming straight after Zelda 1, this is a frickin' insult.
You see, this is the sort of a biased judgment I was referring to. Zelda II is an RPG. You can say you don't like the fact they changed the genre, but this is not an objective criticism. Different genres = different requirements.
(Edited by Donatello (350), May 30, 2012)Re: So this is the black sheep?..
Donatello (350), May 30, 2012
Yeah, you do have a point, and I agree. It is especially important considering how action RPG or elements of RPG started to become a standard in many of the releases that followed this (Castlevania 2 is a fine example).
But I still think that as a consistent package, it is below the first Zelda. The reason is that in such an early stage, I take adventure over action, and from what I've played of Zelda 2, the adventure elements are much more prevalent in the first Zelda (and in many cases, especially on the overworld, it is fairly simple to avoid enemies).
I am all for experimentation, though, so I am not really furious that it deviates from the original formula, it just has some rough edges.
But I still think that as a consistent package, it is below the first Zelda
Well, the reason is that the first Zelda is a genius game ahead of its time. I think Nintendo made a smart and creative move in not trying to make another similar one for the NES. The more variety, the better. And of course, I have a RPG bias :)