Wow, this pretty much sucks

[Anonymous No.5078662]

How did Zelda ever become popular to begin with?

[Anonymous No.5078667]

>>5078662

The answer is in your attached image.

It's hard now to explain how revolutionary the game was when it came out. If you're a young guy playing it for the first time now, you will never be able to understand it, and that's fine, it wasn't made for you. It's like looking back at a Model T and saying "what kind of retard would wanna drive one of these things, they only go like 20 miles an hour!"

Don't worry about it bro.

[Anonymous No.5078690]

>>5078667
Well I was born in the same year. I don't know if I would call myself a young guy anymore, but there are a bunch of design choices I can't understand.

>No diagonal walking
>pathetic sword swing
>repetitive level design
>enemies are actually too fast to the point that its often unfair given how many are onscreen
>random enemy behavior which makes the combat random and less tactical

Its just an all around frustrating experience. I know the NES was limited, but it can overcome all of these issues

[Anonymous No.5078693]

>>5078690

If you don't like it, don't play it.

Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.5078703]

>>5078662
You were getting your money's worth when you bought the game. It made you work to uncover its secrets and gave a real sense of adventure that most other games didn't. Having a save feature also meant you could progress at your leisure, which was uncommon at the time.

[Anonymous No.5078705]

in my opinion, people liked it because it was the first action-rpg game.

secondly, it was the first action game in general that didn't have controls that sucked, and everything was fully understandable. (from things like the map,inventory and story).

[Anonymous No.5078706]

>>5078690
again, like my post above.
zelda made exploring fun, it wasn't grindy and the controls werent broken.
a trademark of that era is shit controls, many games had them. somehow nintendo always gets the controls right, and that's what attracts hardcore gamers

[Anonymous No.5078752]

>>5078690
>>No diagonal walking
>>pathetic sword swing
>>repetitive level design
>>enemies are actually too fast to the point that its often unfair given how many are onscreen
>>random enemy behavior which makes the combat random and less tactical

well no shit sherlock. once again, like others have pointed out, you're dealing with a game made in 1986.

Nobody gave a crap about any of those concepts you mentioned because those things weren't even considered part of basic game design. Video games were a brand new phenomenon at the time and so they were just making the rules up as they went along...because there were no rules.
And there were no rules because there wasn't enough user feedback from people playing video games. You're talking about an industry that JUST started not even a decade before this game came out and one that didn't explode and become mainstream until the start of the 80s.

The reason we have all of those concepts and design choices NOW is due to user feedback and by way of failing. That's how you learn and get better at ANYTHING...by just doing your best, failing at something and/or listening to feedback / constructive criticism and then improving your work based on that feedback.

Nobody is born a fucking genius or with the knowledge to even take care of themselves...you have to shit or piss your pants first in order to learn that pissing or shitting your pants isn't a good thing. Then you learn how to use a toilet etc.

You ARE past the point of pissing and shitting yourself, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.5078793]

Why didn't people just make PS4 games in 1986? Why were developers such untalented hacks back then?

[Anonymous No.5078803]

>>5078793
>Why didn't people just make PS4 games in 1986?
Because they had good taste

[Anonymous No.5078814]

Hi I'm OP again. Why did pic related ever get popular? It sucks.

>No story
>Simple gameplay
>Awful graphics
>No music

Now excuse me while I go jerk off to Sanic Hedgehog porn.

[Anonymous No.5078834]

>>5078752
>>random enemy behavior which makes the combat random and less tactical

This is a bad thing? It sounds like you aren't into video games. You might want to watch a movie instead.

[Anonymous No.5078851]

>>5078705
>people liked it because it was the first action-rpg game.
Explain how Zelda is an action RPG.
Now explain why Metroid isn't.

[Anonymous No.5078869]

>>5078690
>he expects the first game in a genre to get everything right on the first attempt

This never happens...look at Wolfenstein 3D, or Final Fantasy/Dragon Quest 1...hell, the only game I can think of that created a genre and isn't shit today is Dungeon Master, though it's still hard as balls.

[Anonymous No.5078871]

>>5078662
Nice b8

[Anonymous No.5078872]

>>5078662
Is this peak zoomer bait?

[Anonymous No.5078874]

>>5078662
Go back to fortnite, faggot.

[Anonymous No.5078878]

>>5078662
I never played the game when it was released (In fact I hadn't been born yet). Taking into consideration the limitations of the nes and the year it was released, I think the game is quite polished, and you can see that specially if you compare it with games of the same period. It lacks of some features that would make the game more enjoyable, but the game is still fun and engaging.

The small details are what counts: monster design, hidden secrets, the charming progression walls (wands, bombs, brazalets), even the music.

Remember, the only zelda good wihout having a famous dad.

[Anonymous No.5078912]

>>5078834
never said that and you completely missed the point of my post as it relates to responding to OP. Congratulations, you have ADHD or quite possible autism.

Good back, read the OP then read my reply. It shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

[Anonymous No.5078934]

>>5078912
Just imagine sperging out this hard over something so trivial.

[Anonymous No.5078984]

>>5078662
I actually loved it the first time I played it AFTER I played OoT. It's a little dated for sure but it's actually still a very good game.

[Anonymous No.5079007]

>>5078934
Imagine trying to shift the blame for fucking up onto the person who pointed your fuckup out.

[Anonymous No.5079013]

Seems like we have this thread every other week.

[Anonymous No.5079065]

>>5078690
>enemies are actually too fast to the point that its often unfair given how many are onscreen

Pussy.

[Anonymous No.5079072]

>>5079065
I don't even get this complaint? Every enemy in the entire game moves at the exact same speed as Link or slower, with one single exception: blue Lanmolas, which hey guess what, are in the final, hardest dungeon of the game.

[Anonymous No.5079080]

>>5078851
Zelda has swords and fantasy.
Metroid has guns and sci-fi.

[Anonymous No.5079083]

>>5078814
OP here, Pong is still fun. So is Tetris, Super Mario, Excitebike, and a whole host of other 8-bit games.

>>5078834
It makes combat decisions a roll of the dice rather than actually thoughtful. If the enemy speed is slowed down, I can understand, but it isn't.

[Anonymous No.5079092]

>>5078667

Fuck the "revolutionary" meme, I played it in 2009 for the first time (I was 16-17 at that time) and I thought it was based

[Anonymous No.5079098]

If you are asking this you really don't belong in /vr. But I will play along it was my first open world concept game. You could literally spend hours finding every secret and exploring every corner. Then just when you think you figured everything out you realize the second quest is even better than the first. I guess to a youngin the graphics might seem lacking and the second quest seem outlandish, but to someone that grew up in the 80s this is the pinnacle of gaming, the top of the triforce if you will. The only other game that engrossed me as much as this is vanilla wow many years later. The simple answer is the legend of zelda is a game for the ages.

[Anonymous No.5079109]

the "open world concept" thing is probably huge, I bet when Defender first came out being able to fly where you want blew some fucking minds, even anyone who was familiar with games or tech must have known it would be the same shit repeating

[Anonymous No.5079115]

>>5079083
Stun them with your boomerang. The boomerang is your best friend. The only thing that's a real threat at that point are wizzrobes and darknuts, both of which can be defeated by attacking them from their sides.

[Anonymous No.5079156]

>>5078690
>there are a bunch of design choices I can't understand
Another episode of "I'm too stupid to understand design choices therefore they are bad." If anon had designed chess, all pieces would have the Queen's moveset.

>No diagonal walking
Given that some enemies can move diagonally and some enemies can't, this is clearly a conscious design choice. It adds depth to the combat and helps differentiate enemies and abilities on a limited system. The boomerang can be thrown diagonally, but arrows can't. Keese can move diagonally but Darknut can't. Wizrobes only move diagonally when teleporting.

ALTTP had diagonal movement, but also had a variety of new mechanics to add depth in different ways, such as obstacles that can be picked up and thrown or destroyed. And you'll note that even in ALTTP Link can't dash diagonally, he can only slow-walk.

>pathetic sword swing
The sword attack is another very well designed mechanic. Link's stab is fast, but he must stand still and there is a short but distinct recovery phase. Arrows and the boomerang don't have this limitation, but the boomerang only stuns most enemies and arrows are a limited resource. This is called DEPTH and is pretty amazing given the primitive resources available to the game.

>repetitive level design
You have to be kidding me.

>enemies are actually too fast to the point that its often unfair
Whiny millennial wants his participation trophy. No surprise here.

>enemies don't line up for easy killing so the narcissistic millennial can feel good about his mad "tactical" skillz
Enemy behavior is random but if you can't deal with it, that's your fault for sucking not the game's fault. If you actually had tactical skills, reflexes, and awareness you could apply them to make the fights easier.

(I'm not saying there's no bullshit whatsoever anywhere in the game, but there isn't that much. If you're complaining about it, guaranteed it means you need to git gud)

[Anonymous No.5079174]

>>5079072
The problem is that anon is a shitter who can't handle any game that isn't piss-easy and lets him win for just pressing the start button.

[Anonymous No.5079236]

>>5078662
Promotion, hype, having a decent though not exceptionally well designed game. You get to kids young enough they will fanboy it forever - every flaw is actually a "feature", amazing the amount of mental gymnastics they will not only go through but thoroughly believe in themselves decades later. Here we have an advanced case;

>>5079156
>Given that some enemies can move diagonally and some enemies can't, this is clearly a conscious design choice. It adds depth to the combat and helps differentiate enemies and abilities on a limited system.

[Anonymous No.5079375]

>>5079236
There are plenty of flaws in Legend of Zelda, but not being able to walk diagonally isn't one of them. If you think so you are a retard incapable of understanding game design.

[Anonymous No.5079406]

>>5079375
You're a fool.

[Anonymous No.5079408]

This thread again? Damn mods, do your fucking job!

[Anonymous No.5079418]

>>5079406
You still have no argument. Zelda is an excellently designed game and you've done nothing but beg the question. Name calling works better when you're not full of shit.

[Anonymous No.5079452]

>>5079418
You have got to be fucking kidding me? You stated:

>There are plenty of flaws in Legend of Zelda, but not being able to walk diagonally isn't one of them. If you think so you are a retard incapable of understanding game design.

Your idea of an argument is to state that it is not a flaw and that the people who think it is are retarded lol?

I called you a name back because that's exactly what you did to me. Only difference is I wasn't as long-winded about it. I didn't claim it was an argument to call you a fool.

Having no diagonal movement is commonly listed as a commonly-held flaw which people here have agreed with. Zelda is a decently designed game. If you want to argue that it's not a valid flaw at all you better pull out some reasons to.

[Anonymous No.5079508]

>>5078667

fpbp

[Anonymous No.5079586]

>>5079452
You fucking cited part of my argument. Limiting movement along specific axes differentiates gameplay elements. I don't care how many other retards think "no diagonal movement" valid criticism because it's simply not. Christ do I have to start from first principles?

Games are defined by rules. Most rules are restrictive by nature. Rooks in Chess can't move diagonally. Only the goalie may touch the ball in Ass. Football(soccer). And so on. Limiting Link's movement to 4 directions puts parameters on the gameplay and establishes a basis for comparative advantages and disadvantages vs enemies that may or may not share those limitations. Bats have a movement advantage vs Link, but are very weak and easily killed. Lionel have a strong projectile attack, but do NOT move diagonally (and also stand still for a moment before firing). Tektikes jump around. In fact, I would say that movement patterns are one of the most important defining traits of enemies in The Legend of Zelda. Simply throwing in diagonal movement because you arbitrarily think it's better will completely fuck up the balance.

Consider the implications of 8-directional movement would have on fighting, say, Darknut. Beating Darknut in LoZ requires patience and reflexes as you position Link and wait for opportunities to strike. If Link had an 8-directional movement advantage, they'd be much easier to evade and hit. So what would you do, give the Darknut 8-directional movement also? What does the challenge look like in that case? Is it any more interesting or engaging to do it that way?

Complaining about lack of diagonal movement is the epitome of lazy criticism.

[Anonymous No.5080031]

>>5078662
>i was born in 2000 and this old game is shit
Righto mate.

[Anonymous No.5080152]

>>5078662
you suck. The game rules

[Anonymous No.5080161]

>the enemies in this game are TOO TOUGH AND FAST
>Zelda 1 is a BAD GAME

[Anonymous No.5080196]

>>5079586
>You fucking cited part of my argument.
As I explained to you, that was not an argument, you literally just said:

1) No, zelda is excellently designed.

2) You didn't prove anything.

3) Anyone who thinks it's not is retarded.

You argree those aren't arguments right? You agree that's 100% exactly the meaning of what you said with a slight dress-up of the words?

You have indeed given arguments for it in this current post, what do you want, a cookie? You can't clearly show that only moving in 4 directions is good game design because that's unprovable. It's a preference people have. You could claim that being only able to move in three directions in OoT would be a good idea and would add to the game design. That's an unfalsifiable claim. Yes you finally started making something sembling arguments here, they're not very interesting or insightful but yes Anon, they are arguments, congratulations you ascended from just saying "no u".

[Anonymous No.5080201]

I dunno guys. Are we really at this point with zoomers where they literally think "you're retarded if you don't think otherwise" forms part of an argument with someone? That "no it IS" is an argument?

[Anonymous No.5080212]

>>5078662
I know RIGHT?! Doom was SO MUCH EPICER

[Anonymous No.5080254]

>>5078878
The thread making this list was a ton of fun

[Anonymous No.5080368]

>>5080196
Holy shit you're obnoxious.
>what do you want, a cookie
I want an interesting (or funny) response that demonstrates basic comprehension of the topic. Having to spoonfeed basic fucking concepts is aggravating.
>preference
Preference is distinct from design quality. LoZ limits Link's movement to 4 directions as a part of a comprehensive design that yields depth to the combat and variety to encounters. That certainly doesn't mean that 4d movement is good in every game, or that it can't EVER be a valid criticism, but it certainly is not a valid criticism of Legend of Zelda. Of course you can prefer 8d movement, although this is a rather trite thing to have a preference for. It tells you almost nothing about the quality of a game.

>>5080201
It's an appropriate response to vehement criticism based on gross comprehension failure.

[Anonymous No.5081581]

it made rpgs casual.
no level system
no classes
no "your sword broke ya bitch!"
no phoenix down
no Lusty Argonian Maid
no moogles

it was easy for people to get into.

[Anonymous No.5081682]

>>5078878

>James Bond 007

I cannot begin to describe how surprisingly good this game was. Hidden gem.

[Anonymous No.5081684]

>>5081581

[Anonymous No.5081720]

>>5078662

*yawn*

[Anonymous No.5082727]

I grew up on the nes and the only game I feel holds up today is Mario Bros 3
Snes had a lot more gems that stood the test of time, many of them perfecting what their nes started

[Anonymous No.5082743]

>>5078662
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand.
Go back to fortnite.

[Anonymous No.5082836]

>>5078878
That image is such bullshit with its bias.
It should be
Gold = Zelda
Green = Ys
Blue = Secret of Mana

Everything else is either worth playing or on Sega.

[Anonymous No.5082843]

>>5078667
>and that's fine, it wasn't made for you

fuck off to tumblr with that shit.

[Anonymous No.5082856]

>>5079092
Same for me, except I played it in 2003, via Animal Crossing. No internet connection at the time. No manual. No nostalgia attached. Fucking loved it. It's now my favorite NES game.

[Anonymous No.5083471]

>>5082727

CV 1+3? Bro!

[Anonymous No.5083505]

OP needs to get good

[Anonymous No.5083526]

>>5078662
retarded faggot game for retarded faggot children

[Anonymous No.5083547]

Sucks for you OP, Zelda 1 is a fine game - especially the randomizer hack.

[Anonymous No.5083778]

is there a remake with QOL improvements?
I want to play it but the lack of a map put me off

[Anonymous No.5083785]

>>5083526
>>5081581
Cringe

[Anonymous No.5084058]

>>5083778
Make your own map then.
Kids, these days.

[Anonymous No.5084084]

>>5083778
Automap plus is a patch for the NES game that fills out the overworld map as you explore... also speeds up the rate that your hearts refill when you visit a fairy or drink a potion. There's another patch that re-translates the text so that it sounds more natural, and fixes a few of mistranslated lines. Nothing essential though.

What you really should be doing though is keeping a PDF of the instruction manual handy, and drawing your own dungeon maps and notes on graph paper... that sounds shitty but I actually found it to be pretty fun and helped me understand the layout of the maps better. I put all my maps in a binder for future playthroughs.

[Anonymous No.5084089]

>>5083471
1 is good. 3 has some cheap shit.

[Anonymous No.5084096]

>>5082727

How does it feel to be absolutely fucking shit at games?

[Anonymous No.5084381]

>>5084096
Did you not read my post? I played and beat tons of NES games before I could even read. I just think that everything they did was done better later on by their successors

[Anonymous No.5084472]

>>5078667
>If you're a young guy playing it for the first time now, you will never be able to understand it, and that's fine, it wasn't made for you. It's like looking back at a Model T and saying "what kind of retard would wanna drive one of these things, they only go like 20 miles an hour!"
Legitimately one of the most convincing arguments I've ever seen on this website.

[Anonymous No.5084668]

I liked the open world and the puzzles.

[Anonymous No.5084907]

>>5078662
Zelda 2 was the first decent Zelda game. Then Link to the Past came out and everyone started shittong on 2 and hyping 1 again even though its far worse than 2.

[Anonymous No.5084912]

>>5078662
Zelda 2 was the first decent Zelda game. Then Link to the Past came out and everyone started shitting on 2 and hyping 1 again even though its far worse than 2.

[Anonymous No.5085381]

>>5078851
Zelda is an action game with RPG elements
Metroid is a non-linear platformer

Gee, that was hard.

I mean, are you trying to imply that Metroid and Zelda are the same genre? I mean, Christ, what's next? Are you going to say that Zelda, Metroid, Resident Evil, and Half-Life are all the same genre? I mean what game wouldn't be considered a part of that genre?

>>5078690
Just use bombs. I know, I know, actually having to use sub-weapons is really weird and totally flies in the face of our modern and sophisticated design sensibilities but trust me on this one, it works.

[Anonymous No.5085423]

>>5085381
Not that anon, but what exactly are the RPG elements in Zelda?
A story told at the start to set up the context of the quest? Metroid has that.
Item collection? Metroid has that.
Improving your weapons and equipment by finding upgrades? Metroid has that.
Exploring an open world? Metroid has that.
Dungeon crawling? Metroid has that (Kraid/Ridley Hideouts and Tourian are dungeons with bosses at the end of them).
Environmental puzzle solving in the form of using items you've acquired to explore further or find secrets/entrances/shortcuts? Metroid has that.

The only real difference between Zelda and Metroid is the perspective (overhead vs sidescrolling) and the settings (fantasy vs sci-fi). I'm genuinely curious what "RPG elements" you think Zelda has that qualifies it as an RPG while Metroid could not possibly be considered an RPG. I agree with >>5078851 that if you call Zelda an RPG then you pretty much have to call Metroid an RPG. But no one will ever say that because the only reason people call Zelda an RPG is that it features fantasy elements like swords and magic, while Metroid is sci-fi with guns and technology.

For the record, I think it's wrong to call EITHER game an RPG. I don't think they're exactly the same genre, but the only real differentiation between the two games in terms of gameplay is their perspective and controls.

[Anonymous No.5085487]

>>5085381
Standard argumentation for retards is selectively ignoring relevant details until you can make any dumb shit point you want to.

[Anonymous No.5085514]

>>5085423
Not that anon, but there are several key mechanics differentiating these two games that are impossible to ignore.

1. Top-down swordfighting w/ 2D obstacles vs sidescrolling shooting game with emphasis on platforming.
2. Slow respawn rate for enemies leaving time to explore vs fast respawn rate leading to constant action.
3. Open overworld with specific dungeon levels versus a world with interconnected levels.
4. Hero's journey theming in fantasy world with shops and hint-giving NPCs, vs. horror/survival theming inspired by Ridley Scott's Alien movie.

Those things alone lead to massive differences in play experience.

[Anonymous No.5085516]

>>5085423
>>5085514
I don't think either game is an RPG either but they're definitely as different as they are alike.

[Anonymous No.5085520]

>>5085514
Okay, but which of those elements makes Zelda an RPG? I agree they have different gameplay experiences and are not the same game, I even said they don't belong in the same genre.
What I'm arguing is the idea that Zelda is an RPG. So many people call Zelda an RPG, but NO ONE would EVER call Metroid an RPG, even though every gameplay element in Zelda that could possibly define it as an RPG or having RPG elements are ALL present in Metroid. I genuinely believe people only call Zelda an RPG because it has a fantasy setting.

[Anonymous No.5085539]

>>5085520
>Okay, but which of those elements makes Zelda an RPG
Zelda isn't an RPG. It's an action-adventure game. I said I'm not that anon. That said:

1. Top-down perspective is common in feature of RPGs.
2. Fantasy settings are common in RPGs, especially at the time.
3. Open overworlds with a distinctly different character to dungeons, as opposed to interconnected dungeons, are also (or at least would become) a common feature of RPGs. Old school blobbers and dungeon crawlers are a notable exception for this, but its contemporary RPG on the NES (Dragon Quest) was not like this.
4. NPCs and shops are common RPG elements.

Now, I'd argue that these aren't enough to make a game an RPG. And specifically, LoZ's NPCs and shops, and overworld are far more "adventure game like" than "RPG Like," but that's a subtle distinction that requires delving into even more details.

[Anonymous No.5086747]

>>5078662
Picked it up for the first time recently, had a pretty damn good time.

[Anonymous No.5087657]

>>5078705
>because it was the first action-rpg game.

Hydlide and Ys predate this game.

[Anonymous No.5087659]

>>5079080
You say that like RPG‘s can‘t be sci-fi.

[Anonymous No.5087684]

>>5087657
Hydlide sucks Ys is a cool guy.

[Anonymous No.5087713]

>>5087684
>Hydlide sucks Ys
Hot.

[Anonymous No.5087721]

>>5087659

[Anonymous No.5088496]

i don't know what to tell you
there was a huge map that came with the game, and me an all of my cousins played until we uncovered all the secrets

it was basically a game that felt like a project full of puzzles and every dungeon felt like the next chapter

[Anonymous No.5088512]

Was an NES launch title iirc, and before that people were mostly playing Atari. It had the virtue of being a highly unique adventure experience back then. It was deep and satisfying compared to the best of Atari games.

Beyond that, it is given its due for being a pioneering title, mostly, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.5088675]

>>5082843
Who let the edgelord in?

[Anonymous No.5088682]

>>5082727
>perfecting what their nes started
If by that you mean casualizing then yes I agree with you

[Anonymous No.5088909]

>>5080196
>It's a preference people have.
Oh so now you soften your tone? That's not what you said here
>>5079236
>amazing the amount of mental gymnastics

You challenged him
>If you want to argue that it's not a valid flaw at all you better pull out some reasons to.
the proceed to respond with
>what do you want, a cookie? You can't clearly show that only moving in 4 directions is good game design because that's unprovable

So either it's "preference" or in-falsifiable, but anyone who thinks different from you is "just a fanboy"?

Holy cow dude check yourself before you wreck yourself

[Anonymous No.5089231]

>>5088512
Actually, Zelda wouldn't get released on the NES until mid 1987 in the US, a full two years after the console's launch.

[Anonymous No.5089483]

>>5078752
He is an idiot
Just ignore him

[Anonymous No.5089569]

>>5078667
>It's like looking back at a Model T and saying "what kind of retard would wanna drive one of these things, they only go like 20 miles an hour!"
This argument doesn't hold up since the first Zelda offers so much more to explore and find than the newer Zeldas. A more apt comparison is a Model T that you can drive vs a shiny new car that you can only ride in as a passenger.

[Anonymous No.5089586]

>>5088682
Hey anon what does casualizing mean? :)

[Anonymous No.5089596]

Nintendo is really really good at taking existing concepts and streamlining them while simultaneously making them more fun as well as playable. Always have been, still are

[Anonymous No.5089775]

>>5079092
same here. Anyone who says "This game has aged horribly!" about any game, is retarded. Good games are good no matter when you played them.

[Anonymous No.5089840]

>>5078690

>No diagonal walking
That would make the game worse.

>pathetic sword swing
Just keep your hearts then you can shoot beam swords stupid.

>repetitive level design
Look up repetitive in the dictionary, The levels
are only superficially the same.

>random enemy behavior which makes the combat random
As if that's a bad thing.