nesdev.com

A manual that tells you about the controls etc. is fine. But a manual that includes half of a strategy guide, telling you about the game's secrets, that's pretty questionable.

_________________
Available now: My game "City Trouble".
Website: https://megacatstudios.com/products/city-trouble
Trailer: https://youtu.be/IYXpP59qSxA
Gameplay: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
German Retro Gamer article: http://i67.tinypic.com/345o108.jpg

The manual only tells you how to get to the first few dungeons so that newbies get started quickly with the game. These dungeons are easy to find anyway. It doesn't tell you any of the frustrating stuff, you learned these things by trying a lot and by talking to other kids on the schoolyard like Tepples said. Also there where gaming magazines that had tips corners.

I recently did a 100%-completion-and-no-Game-Overs-run of the Japanese version of Zelda 1 (FDS version, both quests), Zelda 2 and Zelda 3 to warm up for Breath of Wild. Now I'm doing Link's Awakening (Japanese monochrome version), I've never beaten it with no Game Overs before (nor had I beated Zelda 1 with no Game Overs before this).

The Wizrobes and the Tartnacks (AKA Darknut) are probably the most dangerous enemies in Zelda 1. But they aren't as bad when you learn their patterns. Never attack a blue Tartnack from the back or a blue Wizrobe from the front. Attack them both from the side.


I think Zelda 2 has among the best fights in any Zelda game, especially against Ironnacks. It's a bit short though.
Dungeons (temples) are never dark, but caves are. You get the candle in the first dungeon though and you only need to pass one single cave in total darkness to reach this dungeon (the Parapa Temple). Zelda 2 is probably harder than Zelda 1 action-wise but not puzzle-wise. I've played much more Zelda 2 as a kid though so I have more problems with Zelda 1. Also I think the FDS version of Zelda 2 is slightly harder than the NES version. You seem to take more damage from enemies, on the other hand there are no enemies that makes you forget some experience points in the FDS version.

Speaking as a Z2 speedrunner, Ironknuckles are a cinch. Jump and do a high slash while descending; they'll absolutely never block it. Repeat until dead and you won't get hit, because they die before they'll throw a slash, unless you haven't been leveling Attack properly. There's a different trick to not be blocked by Geru, somewhat harder and only really necessary in Any%.

Now, fighting Red Dairas in the dark, or dealing with Bots, those are hard. (Yes, the "second-weakest" enemy is a major problem, because it acts based on the PRNG, rather than on your actions.)

Like the game I've been developing since 2005 (if it ever gets released). It's a mix between arcade-games and Zelda. There's multiple path available but within traditional linear stage levels.


Zelda (edit : I'm talking about the original "Legend of Zelda" here) doesn't have those either. The only "RPG" element is the increase of the lifebar and the fact you can get better weapons.

…Zelda 2 obviously excepted.

Zelda 2 is a real RPG with an experience point system, although it doesn't require much grinding. If you take all point bags with good timing (so they aren't wasted), fight most enemies and don't save and quit with the wrong timing (even more important in the FDS version that requires you to level all stats evenly) you will be level 8 in all stats before you even reach the sixth temple.

It sounds like Zelda BOW will have some kind of powering up system besides heart pieces and better items/weapons.


I use this trick against the geru as well. It might not be the best way to fight them, but they are seldom a big problem. The blue Fokka bird warriors in the final temple however...

This is quite true. Was true for me back in the '80s.


Congratulations, you win the "Completely misses the point of the game award"!!!

Super Mario Bros. is an action game, whereas Zelda was always called an adventure (or action-RPG) game. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. You are expected to explore. No time limit in-game, after all.

Zelda was designed to make you learn and memorize. The element of luck or chance was not strictly necessary for improvement. Observational skill definitely was.

Since Zelda BOTW came out on the Switch, and it allows people to ignore the guidance and handholding in the game, many people have started commenting that Zelda on the SNES started the whole handholding thing, to the detriment of the series.

So don't compare Zelda to Mario. I wouldn't want to play a Zelda game without a brains prerequisite. (What will it be called... "Zelda RUN"?)

_________________
http://www.chrismcovell.com

On the other hand, my game is not level-based. It will have a connected world of 16 x 16 screens and a bunch of standalone dungeons.

Places that you aren't supposed to go yet are blocked by obstacles or characters.

Or they are available, but aren't triggered.
For example, if you are supposed to enter a dungeon where you shall kill some opponents who try to break a wall to get an item and you enter the dungeon before the time is due, the opponents will simply not be there yet.


Right. That was more directed towards tokumaru's statement about RPGs.

How much of your game is already visible?
And does it have an in-game plot?


I know that the games are different. But still, "Zelda"'s mechanics haven't aged very well.

Exploration is good and well. But in my opinion, it is implemented in a very old-fashioned way.

If exploration requires you to burn every single tree in the game or to bomb every single wall without any indication whether it will reveal something, it's just a tedious task.
Miyamoto said the game was based on his childhood memories of exploration. But I bet he didn't inspect every single tree in a forest or tried to move every single rock that he encountered to check whether something is underneath it.

Also, it has nothing to do with observation and learning. If there's no indication whatsoever what you have to do, it is only blind luck.
And about the secrets that are revealed to you by the old men and women in the game: They're fine of course, but for those it doesn't require people on the schoolyard exchanging information or a guide, so they're outside the "not holding hands" intention anyway.

_________________
Available now: My game "City Trouble".
Website: https://megacatstudios.com/products/city-trouble
Trailer: https://youtu.be/IYXpP59qSxA
Gameplay: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
German Retro Gamer article: http://i67.tinypic.com/345o108.jpg

Yeah sorry I replied to the posts on the 1st page without seeing a 2nd page was there so I was talking about Zelda 1. I modified my post to reveal this. I'm pretty sure Link to the Past doesn't have any experience build either, and more recent Zelda games I didd't paly so I can't tell.

But Super Mario Bros. Also require memorisation in some of the castles, if you don't go to the correct floor the level will loop until you do, somtimes you can even be trapped if I remember well.

Also, is it me, or Nintendo's games use their own system much worse than 3rd party games ? Neither Zelda games uses sprite outlines at all, and the graphics are quite poor even for NES standards. The ways temples looks in Zelda 2 they seem to use a great total of 16 background tiles for the dungeon when the system allows for 256, also they use exclusively grey for everything but lava. The music and sound effect of Zelda uses the duty cycle of 50%. Also, for the NES version they simply copied the DMC sample from Castlevania when the player gets a hit. Stealing Konami's work like that, they should be ashmed.


Pretty much the entiere game is visible but is "empty" as most of the enemies aren't implemented yet. Only the 1st stage is full of enemies, stage 2 has only part of them done and other has no enemies, only glitchy bosses that doensn't work and make the game crash. Only the area close to the last boss is not yet designed - that is because I'll see in which of the CHR-ROM bank there's space left for the final boss so the design will vary depending on that. There's basically no in-game plot, and there probably won't be. I was almost going to include mini dialogue before and/or after boss fights at the end of each level, but I gave up on that idea since 1) ROM size is limited and 2) I didn't know what most boss would say and for non-humanoid bosses it would have been weird to see them talking.

By the way my gmae *is* going to have the RPG elements Tokumaru was talking about, but I'll try to make grinding un-necessary. It'll be up to the player whether they want to spend time grinding and have an easy time beating the bosses, or rather making progress fast and have harder action. The details will have to be fixed in the testing phase though (if I ever go there !).

Yes the schoolyard and gaming magazines was our internet back then.


No way, the "handholding" or linearity of the series has always been there (a 100% unlinear game like this doesn't sound very fun to me), it just evolved more and more (which made the games better IMHO). In the first two Zelda games, this is done by requiring items to limit the number of possible dungeon orders you can do them in (not counting bug exploits or finishing a dungeon half-way just to grab a dungeon item). The part about finding the dungeons are just puzzles.

In Zelda 3 there are certain scenario phases you need to pass which limits what dungeons you can do, and at first you have to do dungeons in order. But once you have done the first dungeon in the dark world, only items limits what order you can do the dungeons in, just like the first two games. I guess the handholder navi is Sahasrala (and Zelda at times), as he tells you what to do to progress in the game.
The rest of the Zelda games follow this standard which is, I guess, why people blame this game for the increased linearity. I think that these forced phases have just become longer and longer and a bigger part of the game, which makes the games more linear. It was a natural evolution, but it has started to get a bit too much so it doesn't work as good anymore, so Zelda needed to evolve further.
In other words Zelda for Snes had an important evolution which made the games more interesting, but now it has reached a point where it has to evolve further IMHO. I haven't played Breath of the Wild yet though.



Generally not, but there are some third-party makers that are very good with Nintendo's hardware. The first Zelda was a very early game so it's forgiveable but the second Zelda sounds and looks very good to me. The NES version got some good improvements in both departments though (like uniquely colored temples and a better battle tune), so I guess these were due to time constraints.
Regarding stealing the DMC sample I guess they used the same sample bank? The FDS version of Zelda 1 and 2 uses an FDS sound for these sound effects.

Then the manual included with the U.S. release of EarthBound for Super NES must have been questionable as a MOTHER-f███er.

Man, don't get me started on Zelda 2, I was never able to get past the first level! I still haven't to this day. With those emenys on the overworld map, it makes just getting from one place to another extremely difficult.

It's open to debate which battle theme is better, but I think the increased vibrato depth on NES version sounds really terrible - especially considering it's there on the whole soundtrack. It sounds absolutely awfull, at least on the FDS version they restrict themselve to only use 50% square wave and have the same vibrato always but at least that vibrato is softer and sounds much better.

Neither did I. All the place I visited are the 2 villages who are accessible, the 1st temple (never beat the boss there) and a few "dark" caves.

Oh you really have to give it more time if you give up that early. The controls are great and randomness are low, only Bot (blue slimes) are hard to predict as Myask said, so the game feels very fair for those reasons, and is nice for 1CC or I guess speedruns.

Effects aside, the addictive melody is what I really like in the NES battle theme. The FDS battle theme is just a boring variant of the boss themes with a boring melody IMHO.

Unlike Zelda 1, the NES version of Zelda 2 with all of its improvements, a few hiccups aside, is arguably better than the FDS version, and the translation is also generally good. For Zelda 1 they really messed it up by mixing up the hints and making a few new hints that doesn't make any sense (southmost peninsula?). The strings that was correctly translated are good though.


The game would be quite boring without enemies in the overworld. But this is what I like about Zelda 2. In many action RPGs (including most Zelda games) enemies are slow and dumb as rocks, so you can choose to do battle with them however you want. It's like an RPG with always a 99% escape chance. Zelda 2 however make this much harder, and often you have to at least to engage some enemies before you can make a safe escape. The game is quite kind by giving you safe travel roads that enemies stay away from though.

If you still think the earlier enemies are difficult to fight, you just need to spend some more time with the game to get used to the controls I think. No one can play a game like this without practice.

Playing Twilight Princess some time ago, where i felt i got told what to do at every turn that was tied to the progression of the game, it felt like a release going back to The Legend of Zelda. It may be a rough gem and all, but at least it doesn't describe to me how i should play the game like i'd be unable to figure things out by myself.

_________________
http://www.frankengraphics.com - personal NES blog