Zelda: Wand of Gamelon / Link: Faces of Evil

[Discoalucard]

There are three Zelda games on the Phillips CD-I, and all of them are regarded as being pretty awful. Not so, says former Retro Gamer writer John Szczepaniak, who's contributed this extremely awesome article about the development of two of the three titles, including an interview with the creator, as well as details of how they play.

www.hardcoregaming101.net/zeldacdi/zeldacdi.htm

He asked me not to include any images of the embarrassing cutscenes, which feature horrendously bad artwork. You can find them at the links mentioned several times. Suffice to say, the article explains why those graphics turned out the way that they did.

[mainpatr]

These games sound more like Getsu Fuuma Den on the NES(Needs an article by the way!), than a Zelda game does.

[jameseightbitstar]

So is this an article in progress, since it only describes two of the three games?

[YourAverageJoe]

I don't think he'll write about the third title, since it's pretty obvious from reading it that he thinks it's awful.

[Discoalucard]

Yeah, it only covers these two.

[Weasel]

These actually sound like quite fascinating games. This is probably the first time I've ever heard anybody describe the gameplay of them rather than just watching the cinemas.

[ReyVGM]

I don't agree with what he says about "one you get over/learn/ignore the nuances in the control/cinemas/voice you like the game".

If we all learned to do that then we would love a LOT of bad games.
I think these games are just another case of so-bad-it's-good games.

And yes, I did play Link: Faces of Evil back then and it was terrible. I didn't mind the cinemas and I wasn't biased that Zelda was on another system or anything nor did I know anything about who made it. For all I knew back then the game was made by Nintendo themselves.

But the controls, oh god, they were terrible. I would like to know what is he basing on for saying Zelda 2 is worse than these ones.

However, it does have some positive points. For example there are a few items that are pretty cool and and the backgrounds are indeed beautiful.

But then again, a beautiful game doesn't make a good game.

[Neo Rasa]

The third one, Zelda's Adventure, is so, so, so terrible. These two aren't really that good, but they're decent enough and not nearly the worst games ever that they're made out to be.

[dooz]

reyvgm said:

I don't agree with what he says about "one you get over/learn/ignore the nuances in the control/cinemas/voice you like the game".

If we all learned to do that then we would love a LOT of bad games.
I think these games are just another case of so-bad-it's-good games.

And yes, I did play Link: Faces of Evil back then and it was terrible. I didn't mind the cinemas and I wasn't biased that Zelda was on another system or anything nor did I know anything about who made it. For all I knew back then the game was made by Nintendo themselves.

But the controls, oh god, they were terrible. I would like to know what is he basing on for saying Zelda 2 is worse than these ones.

However, it does have some positive points. For example there are a few items that are pretty cool and and the backgrounds are indeed beautiful.

But then again, a beautiful game doesn't make a good game.

I noticed that too. This article is really, really, biased. I noticed that as soon as I started reading the article.

The most rediculous part of the article, I thought, was his three "facts". The third "fact" isn't even a fact! It's an assumption, and one that most fanboys/girls use. "Oh, well you must not have PLAYED it then!"

He then explains problem after problem with the game and then says, "Eh, it's not so bad," even after talking about how most people who HAVE played the game didn't like it.

Maybe if you think how the game looks and sounds is the most important part of a game, then you'd really, truely, enjoy this game. But, come on. How many people consider GAMEplay to me the 2nd most important part of a GAME.

Honestly, I think the article is crap. But, what do I know?

[Discoalucard]

Well obviously it's biased, he's defending the game against the detractors, a vast majority of whom haven't actually played the game. I think that's a pretty accurate assumption. He addresses all of the faults that people that HAVE played the game have mentioned, and basically says that they weren't playing the game properly. I only played one of these once at a Nobody Beats the Wiz some fifteen years ago or so, so I can't back that up, but it's a pretty legitimate way to defend something.

[The bag of sand]

I still hope Nintendo releases these on Virtual Console, you know just for laughs.

[Sketcz-1000]

Hello all,

Thought I'd pop in to address any big comments/questions.

Yes, it is a totally biased article (and maybe not as eloquently written as others on the site). I genuinely liked the games and my motivation was two-fold:
1) Get some facts about it's development, straight from the guy behind it, online available for all to read for free.
2) State that I liked them and thought they were good.

So... Yes, it is a biased article based on my, admittedly odd, opinion. I've not seen anyone else say anything positive about them, and hence was quite open about my liking of them. Did I come across as a fanboy? Quite probably, but then so do all the websites and magazines which write about these games negatively. It's a vicious circle of blindness!


I don't want Kurt or HG101 getting any flak for putting up such an article, since I appreciate the opportunity to contribute this (especially to one of my favourite sites - I mentioned it in a job interview when asked about what I read for gaming info). So by all means feel free to put a disclaimer up stating it's purely the author's opinion, and doesn't represent HG101 as a whole, or something like that.

At the very least, I'd hope you'd be able to stomach my opinion and stay for the development answers (they're italic, so should be easy to filter out).

I think part of it is that my expectations were set so low, that when I started to see clever ideas in LZ, it really blew me away. The whole ice wolf, fire dairas, ice monkey, Metroidvania item acquisition section was really cool. Like I said, they're not fantastic, but they're not the worst games ever made.

The controls are indeed the biggest problem, since unlike the cinemas they can't be ignored and you have to either put up with them being bad and approach sections differently (the rope is handy if you want to avoid jumping from platform to platform), or simply give up on the games.

As for not liking Link's Adventure: no logical basis for it. I completed these two on a CDi quite easily, and soon after attempted Links Adventure on emulator on my Xbox. I finished it with save states, but found some sections insanely difficult. LA's controls aren't that hot either. Jumping along those broken bridges with the bubbles is a good example.

I expected criticism for this article, and if it's from someone who has played the games and can make valid points then I wholly welcome it.

Btw, if there's any questions about the game, please do ask.


EDIT:
I'd love to see these on the VC, albeit with new cinemas and modified controls.

[Sturat]

The backgrounds are nice looking, but since every platform is unique, I found it very difficult to judge where you can actually stand. Bumpy and stiff controls are bad alone, but they're game-killers when every jump is a crap shoot. I own both of these games, but I barely played them and haven't pulled them out in about ten years. I really liked the article, and you've convinced me to try them again when I get a chance.

[vysetd]

Is Zelda's Adventure really that bad? I remember when CD-i actually had a magazine for it. While I don't own any of them anymore, I do remember ZA getting the highest score of the three games (somewhere in the 80's range out of 100). I believe you can also find this out in the digitpress' listing. However, IIRC, the CD-i magazine was also very generous with scoring.

I own ZA and Z:WoG, but haven't actively looked for a CD-i to play them.

[megamoronx]

"though in this author's opinion they're far superior to Adventures of Link on the NES"

Lol