The Legend of Zelda: Dated with Time?

[bartholen_v1legacy]

It's a game on the NES from 1985, of course it's going to be dated.

And I'm sorry, but I really fucking hate this attitude that "Back in the day we had to search for the crack in the wall for 3 days, because the game wasn't some pussy-fest that told you everything you needed to do." Yeah, back in the day when gamers were considered either kids below the age of 10 or smelly fat subhumans in their parents' basements. Good riddance, I say. I want to be able to progress in a game AND also have an adequate social life.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

Uh oh... I completed the game and didn't got stuck until the second quest, where I couldn't find the Lion key or whatever it was named. Finding crackable walls inside dungeons is quite easy once you get the map: Just try all the walls that connect to rooms you haven't explored yet.

As for moving blocks and outisde bushes and walls... yeah, you pretty much have to try every bush and rock standing alone. Once you get into the mindset it isn't that hard.

THAT was it! The maps! I knew there was a way we figured out to do that! Score one for Miyamoto! SO yes, there is absolutely a dirt obvious clue that SOMETHING should get you there. I figured it out, and I was 8. My cousin who played with me was 7.

@ MigrantSoldier You are absolutely correct, Link to the Past was the perfect Zelda formula. Just a touch more info. And cracks in the walls. ((Which, inside a dungeon, I still think are BS))

Out of curiosity, what did everybody THINK the silver arrows were for? And WHY wouldn't you use your best ranged weapon on the Final Boss? One of the great things about link is his versatile weapon selection. Do the arrows ONLY do damage for the last hit? If so, once you determined that you need SOMETHING to make that hit with, you only have SO many options, sort it out.

 

[Riverwolf]

I played the 3DS re-release of Ocarina of Time, and it had definitely shown it's age. The combat was meh, the plot wasn't very engaging, and the game seemed deliberately obtuse. Might be because I didn't play it as a child, and I'd played games that had done similar things but better (Darksiders and Okami, for example). The weird thing was, I played it at the behest of several of my friends, and some of them refused to offer me any help and chastised me for consulting a walkthrough, because being confused is 'part of the experience'. Maybe it isn't just age though, since I had a similar experience when I tried to play Dark Souls.

Personally, I don't enjoy the feeling of being lost or uncertain. It doesn't build any atmosphere for me, it just frustrates me. I play games to have fun, and I don't really see the fun in being confused. I get that a lot of people like it, but it really isn't up my alley. Gaming shouldn't feel like work.

Even as a kid I played games like Ocarina of Time, Pokemon, and Final Fantasy using walkthroughs, or at least maps. There should be absolutely no shame in using them, because you're right: games should be fun. You should be free to have fun with a game however YOU choose, not based on how others had fun.

The fun from not using them, however, doesn't come from confusion; it comes from being presented with a problem, and finding the solution using the tools you have available to you. Nowadays, if a game doesn't have everything you need built in, that's a problem. But I think quest markers and being told the solution to a problem is even worse.

Imagine buying a puzzle and inside the box is an instruction booklet telling you step-by-step where to put each piece. Or being asked a riddle only to have the answer told to you immediately by the person asking. That's no fun, either. I used walkthroughs, especially for JRPGs, because I wasn't interested in the game, but in the story. (And forget trying to play Pokemon without at least knowing what pokemon are in what region and game version.)

But when I played Ocarina of Time, I used the walkthrough I had because I wanted it to be an interactive movie with me as an actor. I wanted to act out like in a script. When walking into a room with a puzzle whose solution I'd been told by the book, I'd pretend I didn't know it and then pretend to solve it. That's how I had fun. And it was absolutely a blast; I played both Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask over and over and over like that. (Heck, in MM, I would often get the room in the inn, put on either the Deku or Goron mask, and then at night actually hold down the shield button and pretend Link was sleeping. I'd then just wait for morning.)

Don't let the hardcore crowd get to you. Have fun with these games however YOU choose, and tell them that they can have fun with those same games however THEY choose.

Still, I always roll my eyes whenever I see "hardcore" gamers say that Zelda needs to return to its roots in the first one.

The only thing from the first game I'd like to see return is the sandbox design: that is, the ability to go anywhere in Hyrule right from the beginning, including the last dungeon. I think the series is focusing too much on telling stories and not enough on adventure.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I don't think less of anybody for using a Guide. I have consulted guides too. There's plenty of reasons to use one, all valid. I also find RiverWolf's interpretation of using the guide to seamlessly experience the Story, I will do this with a game in the Future, I quite like the concept.

Just don't pretend the game is unplayable without it, or designed to need it.

 

[PeaceRider]

The thing is games back then had next to no instruction on what is going on.
Just a small intro to the story via the instruction booklet or a block of text in the opening, some instruction for controls in the instruction booklet, and off you go on a grand adventure that pretty much had zero restrictions.
Most people found things themselves, which is how things were done way back then. If you desperately needed help you'd have to ask someone else who played the game, or hope there were tips in the next issue of the game magazines.
Before the days of the internet and it's FAQ sites and forums, it was up to the gamer to play and win, and when you would find a secret room, get a new power up, or found a random, unexplained thing, that was all you. And thus gaming myths and legends came to be. Some proved true (Mario Bros. endless water zone thing) and some not true (Mew being under the truck).

All in all, it's not a matter of if it has or not aged well, but if you the gamer can handle that different style.

This proves my point that it's aged. Even gamers back then had to rely on outside sources to be able to know where they're going. I think I heard in an interview once that Miyamoto actually made the game specifically so people can get help from other people. And since obviously a game isn't always going to be relevant all the time, people are going to stop talking about this game. This leaves new players in the dark unless they ask for help. Asking for help is not something that should be encouraged in a game; it should be playable and beatable with the player and the game alone.

It CAN be beaten without help. The player just needs to be patient, which I guess in this day and age is not something the average person (let alone a gamer) has. Another way to think about it, is that it's like life. You don't exactly have a path set for you, and you don't always know where to go. This game was made to represent times in Miyamoto's childhood where he would explore caves. A kid doesn't know exactly what is out in the woods and caves of the world, but that is part of the reason to explore.
I think the true "problem" is that it isn't a game of instant satisfaction. It's more a satisfaction gained from completing a long task.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I played the 3DS re-release of Ocarina of Time, and it had definitely shown it's age. The combat was meh, the plot wasn't very engaging, and the game seemed deliberately obtuse. Might be because I didn't play it as a child, and I'd played games that had done similar things but better (Darksiders and Okami, for example). The weird thing was, I played it at the behest of several of my friends, and some of them refused to offer me any help and chastised me for consulting a walkthrough, because being confused is 'part of the experience'. Maybe it isn't just age though, since I had a similar experience when I tried to play Dark Souls.

Personally, I don't enjoy the feeling of being lost or uncertain. It doesn't build any atmosphere for me, it just frustrates me. I play games to have fun, and I don't really see the fun in being confused. I get that a lot of people like it, but it really isn't up my alley. Gaming shouldn't feel like work.

I don't think it's age, to be honest. The 3DS version was the first time I properly played the game (I pissed about a bit on the Gamecube one, but that was my only prior experience) and I still loved it. Loved the combat, loved the level design and loved the feeling of adventure. The plot wasn't particularly great, but not egregiously bad. It got you from A to B.

I do agree that Darksiders is better, though. I don't care if it's heresy, that game was the shit. Wasn't keen on the sequel.

The only thing from the first game I'd like to see return is the sandbox design: that is, the ability to go anywhere in Hyrule right from the beginning, including the last dungeon. I think the series is focusing too much on telling stories and not enough on adventure.

I haven't played it myself, but didn't A Link Between Worlds do that?

 

[Riverwolf]

I haven't played it myself, but didn't A Link Between Worlds do that?

I'm not sure, since I haven't played it, either. (I don't have a 3DS). From what I've heard, though, it's still effectively linear unless you're REALLY patient with rupee-collecting.

 

[xaszatm]

There was no Zelda 2. Only a single Zelda game for the NES was made.

Now now, it's not healthy to repress memories you know. They only come back much worse when you try to trick your mind that they didn't exist. Believe me, I've tried with other games. *still trying to forget Other M*

So we can admit that those games existed? You know the CD...I'll be quiet now, please put the gun down.

Yeah, as someone who started on the N64, going back to try the classics were hard. While some, like NES Mario still hold up, The Legend of Zelda has aged poorly. Though it is the sequel that really took the hit.

 

[Ratty]

The first Legend of Zelda game is like the second Castlevania game, Simon's Quest in that it can't really be played "as intended" today, because the world it's made for no longer exists.

LoZ is from a different era. It's built with the assumption that it's the late 1980s and you and the other kids in your school are all playing the game at the same time, sharing hints, strategies and discoveries.

But since this isn't the 1980s and it's not the "hot new game" that everyone is playing, you can't do that. And looking up FAQs and Guides is the only reasonable way to sanely get through such games today. I tend to get bored with games quickly (my ability to concentrate on a game is usually strained past the 15 hour mark, no matter how much I'm enjoying it) so I almost always use guides anyway, so this doesn't bother me. But yeah not a fault of the game or the game's designers, just the fact that it's over a quarter of a century old and its design doesn't let it age as gracefully as something simplistic like a platformer or traditional jRPG.

PS- I played through The original Legend of Zelda for the first time a few months ago, used a guide the whole way through. It was ok but Twilight Princess for the Gamecube is still my favorite.

PPS- It's also worth noting that some of the game's more subtle hints were lost due to translation errors. http://legendsoflocalization.com/the-legend-of-zelda/first-quest/

 

[uknownada]

The thing is games back then had next to no instruction on what is going on.
Just a small intro to the story via the instruction booklet or a block of text in the opening, some instruction for controls in the instruction booklet, and off you go on a grand adventure that pretty much had zero restrictions.
Most people found things themselves, which is how things were done way back then. If you desperately needed help you'd have to ask someone else who played the game, or hope there were tips in the next issue of the game magazines.
Before the days of the internet and it's FAQ sites and forums, it was up to the gamer to play and win, and when you would find a secret room, get a new power up, or found a random, unexplained thing, that was all you. And thus gaming myths and legends came to be. Some proved true (Mario Bros. endless water zone thing) and some not true (Mew being under the truck).

All in all, it's not a matter of if it has or not aged well, but if you the gamer can handle that different style.

This proves my point that it's aged. Even gamers back then had to rely on outside sources to be able to know where they're going. I think I heard in an interview once that Miyamoto actually made the game specifically so people can get help from other people. And since obviously a game isn't always going to be relevant all the time, people are going to stop talking about this game. This leaves new players in the dark unless they ask for help. Asking for help is not something that should be encouraged in a game; it should be playable and beatable with the player and the game alone.

It CAN be beaten without help. The player just needs to be patient, which I guess in this day and age is not something the average person (let alone a gamer) has. Another way to think about it, is that it's like life. You don't exactly have a path set for you, and you don't always know where to go. This game was made to represent times in Miyamoto's childhood where he would explore caves. A kid doesn't know exactly what is out in the woods and caves of the world, but that is part of the reason to explore.
I think the true "problem" is that it isn't a game of instant satisfaction. It's more a satisfaction gained from completing a long task.

Testing the player's patience is fine, but not to the extent that the first Zelda game provides. If that's what makes Zelda good, then it's not an adventure about discovering things on your own. It's an adventure of trial and error. "Does this bomb work on this random rock? Nope. How about this one? Nope. This one? Nope." That's what the game consists of.

And you're a little incorrect about the Miyamoto thing. This game was INSPIRED by his ventures in the forests; it was NOT made to be like exploring the woods.

There's a big difference between exploring the woods and exploring Zelda. In the woods, it's a real situation and you have no idea what's ahead of you. In the woods, you just have to walk everywhere. In Zelda, it's very easy to explore the entire overworld. But in order to complete the game, you need to do things which should not work in the first place. aka bomb this random rock.

Why should I walk this new path in the woods? To see what more there is. Why should I bomb this random rock? To see if I need to bomb the next random rock. And the next. And the next. You see the pattern here?

 

[Ratty]

It's a game on the NES from 1985, of course it's going to be dated.

And I'm sorry, but I really fucking hate this attitude that "Back in the day we had to search for the crack in the wall for 3 days, because the game wasn't some pussy-fest that told you everything you needed to do." Yeah, back in the day when gamers were considered either kids below the age of 10 or smelly fat subhumans in their parents' basements. Good riddance, I say. I want to be able to progress in a game AND also have an adequate social life.

That's why on the 5th day of (Sega) Genesis Yahweh created GameFAQs, and it was good.
He presumably spent the 3rd and 4th days making Mountain Dew and Doritos, so half-good I guess.

 

[uknownada]

I haven't played it myself, but didn't A Link Between Worlds do that?

I'm not sure, since I haven't played it, either. (I don't have a 3DS). From what I've heard, though, it's still effectively linear unless you're REALLY patient with rupee-collecting.

Link Between Worlds isn't linear at all, actually. You can go to any dungeon in any order.

 

[Riverwolf]

Link Between Worlds isn't linear at all, actually. You can go to any dungeon in any order.

Definitely sounds like a start as far as going more open... goes.

In the first game, if you're skilled enough, you can get through about 70% with just the starting sword and bombs. (Or just bombs if you're REALLY hardcore.) If you're skilled enough, how much of LBW could you potentially get through with just the sword (that is to say, without doing the whole item-rental thing)?

 

[Veylon]

Come on! Finding stuff in LoZ wasn't that hard. There was, at most, one secret per overworld screen with any sort of already-shown shop or hold counting. Blow the whistle. If nothing happens, drop bombs on the borders between each two tiles of flat rock. Burn the bushes. Try to push stuff. If there's nothing there, move on. I'll grant the second quest is pretty tough, but all that's needed for the first is due diligence.

It's not like you have to wait in X location for so long or talk to N random people in such-and-such an order or the "real" ending is only unlocked if you happen to be wearing certain gear or that you need to punch in some arbitrary code. It's pretty straightforward. Aside from the silver arrows, that is.

 

[uknownada]

Come on! Finding stuff in LoZ wasn't that hard. There was, at most, one secret per overworld screen with any sort of already-shown shop or hold counting. Blow the whistle. If nothing happens, drop bombs on the borders between each two tiles of flat rock. Burn the bushes. Try to push stuff. If there's nothing there, move on. I'll grant the second quest is pretty tough, but all that's needed for the first is due diligence.

It's not like you have to wait in X location for so long or talk to N random people in such-and-such an order or the "real" ending is only unlocked if you happen to be wearing certain gear or that you need to punch in some arbitrary code. It's pretty straightforward. Aside from the silver arrows, that is.

To a new player, how are they supposed to know to do that? In the overworld, only 3 rocky spots are bombable, and one of them is the final level. How are they supposed to know to bomb there? Just guess? That doesn't sound very fun. A fun game provides fair challenges through its level design. Zelda provides a fair challenge if you have a subscription to this certain magazine.

 

[WeepingAngels]

That gold cartridge was awesome though. Even with no manual and not knowing how to play, it was the coolest looking game cart in the stack.

Yeah, I finally beat it about 10 years ago, with the help of the internet. Zelda II, I want to love this game but it's just too hard.

 

[Fireaxe]

To a new player, how are they supposed to know to do that? In the overworld, only 3 rocky spots are bombable, and one of them is the final level. How are they supposed to know to bomb there? Just guess? That doesn't sound very fun. A fun game provides fair challenges through its level design. Zelda provides a fair challenge if you have a subscription to this certain magazine.

The idea of LoZ was to avoid linearity and get people to explore and try things rather than give them indicators on what to do, also part of the idea was that people who played it would actually work together to help each other solve all the puzzles -- so it was meant to be a sort of social experience (like Pokemon was with the trading aspect) rather than just a single player one. In that respect it hasn't aged well -- other people played it and talked about it mostly when the game was new.

This is not actually an error or problem with the game though; some works of art are only really relevant in their own time and this doesn't just apply to games, the song "Wind of Change" by the German band Scorpions for example is generally more relevant to German people who were alive to see the Berlin wall come down and Germany reunified than others.

 

[Veylon]

To a new player, how are they supposed to know to do that? In the overworld, only 3 rocky spots are bombable, and one of them is the final level. How are they supposed to know to bomb there? Just guess? That doesn't sound very fun. A fun game provides fair challenges through its level design. Zelda provides a fair challenge if you have a subscription to this certain magazine.

A certain magazine that wasn't even available where the game was originally released. Heck, Nintendo Power didn't even cover the first quest of the game, only a little of the second. I'm assuming NP is the magazine you're referencing.

It's explicitly told on the map that comes with the game that bombs can blow holes in certain rocks. Also, there are considerably more than three bombable spots. There are upwards of a dozen on the overworld.

If you don't like the game, fine. If you think it's a bad game because of the trial-and-error stuff, fine. But there's no need to make stuff up.

 

[uknownada]

The idea of LoZ was to avoid linearity and get people to explore and try things rather than give them indicators on what to do, also part of the idea was that people who played it would actually work together to help each other solve all the puzzles -- so it was meant to be a sort of social experience (like Pokemon was with the trading aspect) rather than just a single player one. In that respect it hasn't aged well -- other people played it and talked about it mostly when the game was new.

This is not actually an error or problem with the game though; some works of art are only really relevant in their own time and this doesn't just apply to games, the song "Wind of Change" by the German band Scorpions for example is generally more relevant to German people who were alive to see the Berlin wall come down and Germany reunified than others.

I could forgive it if it was just that. But the game has been constantly praised by so many people who used it that way that I wonder how the kids who just wanted to play on their own feel, even back then.

It's explicitly told on the map that comes with the game that bombs can blow holes in certain rocks. Also, there are considerably more than three bombable spots. There are upwards of a dozen on the overworld.

And how are you supposed to find these spots? Only way without a guide seems to be checking everything. Every single spot. There's no challenge or fun in that for the player. It's not designed to "solve" with any deductive reasoning. You can't gather your knowledge and say "With everything that I know, I should be able to bomb this certain spot." It's a guessing game. Not a puzzle. Only way to solve it is to succumb to the game's cryptic design, or happen to grow up in a place or time when the game was relevant. Obviously the latter option won't always be available.

 

[stroopwafel]

The first Zelda pioneered a lot of ideas that further games improved upon. It indeed laid a foundation of sorts. Like with many old(ancient?) games you probably won't enjoy them if you never played them when they originally came out, simply b/c newer games have done things better. Anyone who wasn't around back then would be better off playing A Link to the Past simply b/c it's still a fantastic game even by today's standards with the NES original playing more like a poor prototype of this masterpiece. Not even mentioning Zelda 2(which also demonstrates how they were still busy to let the franchise finds its way). But yeah, other than retro enthusiasts the original is probably best ignored by everyone else. A videogame icon for sure, just not a lot of fun to play.