|
Post by kyouki on Jun 5, 2006 10:43:59 GMT -5
I second Hydlide, and would like to throw in Deadly Towers as well. Two NES games that are panned by pretty much everyone (thanks to Seanbaby, I think). As mentioned by jameseightbitstar, Hydlide is a very light game, but it's also kind of neat in a way. It sure doesn't play like any other 8 bit adventure/RPG (not even Ys).
I never understood the hatred for Deadly Towers. It's not perfect, but it's a fantastic Zelda like adventure game, with tons of secrets and a massive world. I bought it on a whim when I was a kid and enjoyed it quite a bit. I prefer it to Zelda 3, myself, because after Zelda 2 the series lost that "explore a mysterious land" feeling and started the Nintendo trend of over explaining things and explicitly directing you to the next goal.
Siren definitely deserves more credit than it gets. It is more frightening than pretty much every other horror game, and although it's difficult, it's surprisingly fair once you take the time to get the system down. It takes a lot of time and patience. The sequel is even better, and they fixed nearly every complaint anyone could have of the first game.
I enjon the King's Field/Shadow Tower series very much. It's pretty much hated by everyone (except for the first game, which got raving reviews when it was first released). It's a shame Shadow Tower Abyss was refused release in the US, as it's a pretty stunning game with a unique atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Jun 6, 2006 2:28:23 GMT -5
I prefer it to Zelda 3, myself, because after Zelda 2 the series lost that "explore a mysterious land" feeling and started the Nintendo trend of over explaining things and explicitly directing you to the next goal. OH MAN I could go on forever about that! In fact I did once write an article on why the Zelda franchise basically went downhill after Zelda II, and yes this was one of the (many) reasons. Except me. I enjoyed King's Field. Shadow Tower I almost liked but it had a lot of iffy elements (weapons that could become worn and eventually break, and not enough you could do about it).
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Jun 6, 2006 6:12:02 GMT -5
I get what you are saying about Zelda. I find that Shadow of the colossus is closer to the feel of the first two than all of the Zelda games that folowed.
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Jun 6, 2006 8:35:00 GMT -5
OH MAN I could go on forever about that! In fact I did once write an article on why the Zelda franchise basically went downhill after Zelda II, and yes this was one of the (many) reasons. Except me. I enjoyed King's Field. Shadow Tower I almost liked but it had a lot of iffy elements (weapons that could become worn and eventually break, and not enough you could do about it). What were some other reasons why you didn't like Zelda after the second? Is that article still around? Another KF fan! I get what you are saying about Zelda. I find that Shadow of the colossus is closer to the feel of the first two than all of the Zelda games that folowed. I agree with this. Especially if you play the game without using the sword to find the colossi. Then it really feels like Zelda 1 in that they both offer, "here you are, go wherever you want and try to figure it out." However, I am weak and I always fall back on using the sword when I get lost.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Jun 6, 2006 11:19:44 GMT -5
The article is still around, it's buried on a CD-ROM, but I could dig it up if I felt like it.
Basically, my reasons for not liking Zelda after the first two games were:
* Linear exploration (The first two were pretty free-form, with Z3 we started having linear dungeon orders... though the free-formness briefly returned in OOT)
* The way "Secrets" were began to be clearly revealed by things like cracks in the walls.
* The "All enemies have some sort of pattern" technique, causing battles to come down to just a matter of memorize the pattern (sadly, this seems to have rubbed off onto just about every other game ever made). I know the original Zelda had Gohma, but most of the bosses and ALL of the normal battles were pretty much free-form, IE there was always more than one way to win (example: You could stab Dodongo while he was stunned if the bomb didn't go right into his mouth). In Link to the Past and its ilk? No way, you have to do what Nintendo wants you to do.
* How, starting with Z3, weapons like the bow became absolutely useless unless they were somebody's weakness.
* And, again with linear exploration: The Dungeons in Zeldas I and II weren't too restrictive and you were free to muck around until you found where you needed to go. In Link to the Past onwards you had to visit rooms in a prescribed order, and no bombing through the walls to break sequence like you could in Zelda I.
That being said, I found the Nintendo 64 Zeldas to be a brief return to the spirit of the original. They still contained some of the problems began in Link to the Past (linear dungeons, pattern-based fights) but in other areas were more like Zelda 1 (free-form overworld exploration, most of the secrets were actually hidden).
|
|
|
Post by shido on Jun 6, 2006 13:22:28 GMT -5
I have a feeling you want Zelda to be some kind of Elder Scrolls game. The dungeons in Zelda are some sort of huge puzzles, and for a good puzzle there is only one solution.
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on Jun 6, 2006 14:35:07 GMT -5
Nice. Its about time I found a small KF fanbase. I hated the first one until I got used to the whole "Strafe-n-slash, Strafe-n-slash" fighting style.
I still think that Flash is one of the greatest spells ever.
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Jun 6, 2006 17:22:07 GMT -5
Someone should do an article about Blood Will Tell (and games based on the works of Tezuka Osamu in general). Sad that this little gem didn't recive more attention.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Jun 7, 2006 2:46:47 GMT -5
I have a feeling you want Zelda to be some kind of Elder Scrolls game. While that would be kinda cool, I actually just want more Zeldas that are truly in the style and spirit of the original, not just "we're like the first one because you go to eight dungeons and have a semi-overhead view." As it is, competitor series and knock-offs (Neutopia, Landstalker, etc.) are closer to the original Zelda than its own sequels! Don't get me wrong but that's a kinda narrow-minded and thoughtless viewpoint. Good puzzles tend to have one INTENDED solution, but the true beauty is often in finding ways the creators never intended (the creator of Lemmings had a lot to say about that...) Someone should do an article about Blood Will Tell (and games based on the works of Tezuka Osamu in general). Sad that this little gem didn't recive more attention. Sad that Tezuka himself doesn't recieve more attention (of course, that's probably because Americans hate truly deep, meaningful storytelling)! Yes yes yes, ANYTHING involving THE MAN needs to be done, NOW!
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Jun 7, 2006 14:37:46 GMT -5
The 2 Power Blade games are also quite underrated.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 7, 2006 15:56:35 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong but that's a kinda narrow-minded and thoughtless viewpoint. Good puzzles tend to have one INTENDED solution, but the true beauty is often in finding ways the creators never intended (the creator of Lemmings had a lot to say about that...) I wouldn't exactly call the viewpoint thoughtless, although it's a design principle I don't exactly agree with. What I like is in an action game liked Contra: Shattered Soldier. There's usually an optimum way to beat a boss, but any strategy will work, just some not as well as others. At this point it's all about optimization, which I think is better than the typical Nintendo "this is how to beat the boss" rote mechanics. I really hate getting into a battle and finding that my attacks don't work at all, because I'm either not using the right weapon, or I'm not attacking at the right time. Also, I picked up Blood Will Tell but only played a bit of it because I was running out of memory card space. It actually seemed pretty decent.
|
|
|
Post by Neo Rasa on Jun 7, 2006 16:07:39 GMT -5
While that would be kinda cool, I actually just want more Zeldas that are truly in the style and spirit of the original, not just "we're like the first one because you go to eight dungeons and have a semi-overhead view." As it is, competitor series and knock-offs (Neutopia, Landstalker, etc.) are closer to the original Zelda than its own sequels! This drew me into Wind Waker quite a bit. I love the overworld in that game because if you don't look at the map or get the extra advice it's just this huge vast area to explore where, like the original game, the only givens are that there will be large dungeons to enter, small caves to enter, and there will be an entrance to something or other on every "square" of the map just like the original. Systematically dismantling and finding everything on the original Legend of Zelda map was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by megatronbison on Jun 14, 2006 10:26:36 GMT -5
I really liked a little strategy game on the SNES called 'Metal Marines' although I fear that my glasses may be rose tinted
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Jun 14, 2006 11:48:14 GMT -5
Silpheed: The lost planet is not that bad even tough it's not in the usual Treasure leuge, there was no need for them to remove them selfs from it and they have made worse games. (Stretch Panic anyone?). Also, I find that the PS2 Rygar doesn't get enough respect in general, and I blame medicore sales on it's horrible cover art.
|
|
|
Post by Drawesome(Dale) on Jun 14, 2006 11:59:00 GMT -5
Vulgus Capcom's first game and my favorite Shmup of all time. it's interesting because everything about it that makes it great can be thanked to Capcom's inexperience. Great unrelenting game. I also have the secound highest score ever for this game which I am very proud of.
|
|