Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
Other than a shift in the location, characters and storytelling, LA is one of the the most traditional Zelda games. There's not much that's terribly wrong with the game, it just plays like any other Zelda, and it's got that archaic campaign progression that most of the older titles had.
|
Very true. Link's Awakening, as far as progression, is very true to A Link to the Past. There were some innovations, like jumping, and the inclusion of fully fleshed-out sidequests, but the whole feel of the game was very different. While you mention the new location, characters and storytelling as a minor change, I think they gave LA its own identity. LA may play the very traditionally, but it feels completely different.
Now, as for being very traditional, I don't find it to be a flaw at all because it did things
better. The puzzles felt more fast-paced and fun (Roc's Feather really makes traveling more fun), the overworld seemed to have more going on, the towns were more alive, and the dungeons were more creative and arguably more complex.
Quote:
|
Oh, I forgot, one thing the game did suck at were the bosses. Dethl absolutely saved LA in that regard.
|
I liked the bosses in Link's Awakening. While not as good as ALttP's, Link's Awakening's bosses surely are better than the more recent Zelda games'. I just like the faster battles that actually require you to fight than to solve a mindless puzzle. But, yes, I agree that the boss battles are one of the less impressive segments in Link's Awakening.