Am I the only one that thinks the first two Zeldas are 'UnZelda-ey'?

OK, OK, the very first one WAS the original Zelda-defining game and so you may say that my title is a paradox, but bear with me... it is my belief that a 'Zelda game' is something that encompasses many aspects, hence no other game being able to touch the series.

My first Zelda game to play was ALttP and maybe that has skewed my judgement as to what a Zelda game should be, but that said I could argue back that players of the two games before that only think it's that good because of nostalgia, like I do with games like Alex Kidd in Miracle World (kick ass-game BTW). What drew me in to ALttP were varied backdrops, conversations, mini-quests and swapping things, little secrets like the magic bee in a bottle and throwing an empty one in a fairy fountain for some green potion/sword arrows for a better one, you get the idea...

Now, in my opinion every Zelda game since ALttP has only needed these aspects to be considered Zelda, and every one of these games has had these things at the basic core, and then built around it with various different things such as varying items, time travel, etc... but to make them essentially Zelda, they must have had THESE things. Strip it down to what LoZ had... no real characters to properly interact with, no exchanging items, a couple of optional upgrades but no real secrets, no side-quests, bland and repetitive landscapes and I think you'd be pretty bored pretty quick, and pretty unimpressed, despite amazing graphics (which were of course not greatly varied despite the amazingness).

You can argue that this is how gaming evloves, that standards get higher, and that is true in terms of desgniers' ideas but as I said before; at the core these things are all pretty fundamental gameplay basics that are not reliant on technology levels and as the GBC has shown us 3 times, can be done in 8 bit systems. Oh yeah, and Zelda 2 whilst being a good game is a no-brainer that it is the least Zelda-ey out of the whole lot (waiting for someone to argue that point for the sake of it, and they will - you wait).

Opinions?

I agree. They still could have added a more Wonderous story and more twists to it in order to make it more exciting.

But then again.... Most games start out like that and then you get hooked!

Well...from what I've heard from my Zelda obsessed friend who keeps meaning to join this forum, I think the first ones were kinda...well, obviously they didn't do good graphics, and personally I think the graphics is what gets most people hooked. Now, people mostly just play and finish the first games just to say they did.....

I'm assuming there had to be some length of technical limitations at the time and thus, that area of the game wasn't properly developed(and going back to your point, I suppose they weren't even considering that kind of thing back in that little archiac period). If anything though, the game was a pioneer in the adventure genre that defines Zelda today. It incoporated all the puzzle and exploration elements, along with the array of all the items. And while you could argue that how it shaped the adventure genre is irrelevant, I think it really does define its own idenity as Zelda. If anything though, it set the basic template or engine that was layered upon after time. Meh. I don't know.

zelda to me is simply exploring, finding dungeons, solving puzzles, fighting monsters, killing a boss, and get items in the process. repeat a few times, kill ganondorf or whoever is the boss, and voila. i'll admit the first two games were a snooze, but they're still zelda, they just have nothing to.

Originally Posted by the_oni_link

zelda to me is simply exploring, finding dungeons, solving puzzles, fighting monsters, killing a boss, and get items in the process. repeat a few times, kill ganondorf or whoever is the boss, and voila. i'll admit the first two games were a snooze, but they're still zelda, they just have nothing to.

They main thing that really excites me about Zelda is the well... Storyline. I love the action and all that. But the story is like a jigsaw and when a new game comes out I just want to know WHAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME EXISTING IS!

Originally Posted by groovemeister

What drew me in to ALttP were varied backdrops, conversations, mini-quests and swapping things, little secrets like the magic bee in a bottle and throwing an empty one in a fairy fountain for some green potion/sword arrows for a better one, you get the idea...

Backdrops and conversations were definately lacking in LoZ. I would define a mini-quest as a mission that isn't required for completion of the game, but assists in making the completion easier. LoZ had mini-quests for swords, potions, and a new tunic. Granted, there wasn't a lot to them, and they were almost necessary for beating the game, but the game can be cleared without them, so they're optional. Little secrets? Scattered throughout the land are hidden caves with free rupees, gambling games, and advice. "It's a secret to everyone."

Originally Posted by groovemeister

Strip it down to what LoZ had... no real characters to properly interact with, no exchanging items, a couple of optional upgrades but no real secrets, no side-quests, bland and repetitive landscapes and I think you'd be pretty bored pretty quick, and pretty unimpressed, despite amazing graphics (which were of course not greatly varied despite the amazingness).

Interaction with characters was pretty low, just a few scattered NPC's. Exchanging items is covered in LoZ, a note for a potion shop. I already talked about secrets and side-quests. I'd have to agree with you on the bland and repetitive landscapes, but few games of that era had awe-inspiring backdrops. They mixed it up with mountains, grasslands, forests, coasts, deserts, and mazes.

Atari set the bar pretty low in the early to mid 80's, so Ninty did pretty good according to the standards set before them. The story was pretty deep for being the first in the series, but most of it was covered in the map that was included with the game. If you don't have a map, you're missing out on how Nintendo wanted the game to be played, one of the cons of a cool and innovative idea of including a map.

Yeah, I feel that the first one didn't give me the "Zelda" vibe like all the others. I didn't play #2, so I don't know what you're talking about there.

I'm sorry this is short, but it's all I've got.

Originally Posted by GreenBandit

Backdrops and conversations were definately lacking in LoZ. I would define a mini-quest as a mission that isn't required for completion of the game, but assists in making the completion easier. LoZ had mini-quests for swords, potions, and a new tunic. Granted, there wasn't a lot to them, and they were almost necessary for beating the game, but the game can be cleared without them, so they're optional. Little secrets? Scattered throughout the land are hidden caves with free rupees, gambling games, and advice. "It's a secret to everyone."

They were not mini-quests, they were "a couple of (or rather "a few") upgrades. The hidden games and pieces of heart I suppose count as little secrets but unlike later Zelda games there were no clues to their location; certain hedges just could be burned, certain walls just could be blown up, y'know? There was no satisfaction as finding them was random or required a lot of painstaking work, which isn't fun, unlike strolling past a crack or seeing a mysterious mark, or maybe lone hedge looking quite suspicious. Ah, Zelda secrets...

Originally Posted by groovemeister

Strip it down to what LoZ had... no real characters to properly interact with, no exchanging items, a couple of optional upgrades but no real secrets, no side-quests, bland and repetitive landscapes and I think you'd be pretty bored pretty quick, and pretty unimpressed, despite amazing graphics (which were of course not greatly varied despite the amazingness).

Interaction with characters was pretty low, just a few scattered NPC's. Exchanging items is covered in LoZ, a note for a potion shop. I already talked about secrets and side-quests. I'd have to agree with you on the bland and repetitive landscapes, but few games of that era had awe-inspiring backdrops. They mixed it up with mountains, grasslands, forests, coasts, deserts, and mazes.

Atari set the bar pretty low in the early to mid 80's, so Ninty did pretty good according to the standards set before them. The story was pretty deep for being the first in the series, but most of it was covered in the map that was included with the game. If you don't have a map, you're missing out on how Nintendo wanted the game to be played, one of the cons of a cool and innovative idea of including a map.[/quote]I wouldn't have called the NCPs characters as it is, they only had one line each throuout the hole game. Although the environments were varied, the variety within the variatin was ot varied if that makes sense. I'm not slagging LoZ, I'm saying that it lacks the 'Zelda feel', which IMO wasn't even established until ALttP, and other games managed to create rich worlds, such as Sonic, Castle of Illusion and Land of Illusion and Alex Kidd on the Master System.

In fact, even to this day I can't get over such a stunnng loooking game as Sonic existing on the MS being 8 bit.

Maybe not the first game, but the second is so off zelda that i cried when i played it.

What makes your opinion flawed as to what makes a game Zeldaey is that you failed to mention this; Random hero(Link) armed with a sword similar to Excaliber saves random princess(Zelda). How much more Zeldaey do you need a game to be in order to be your ideal Zelda type game?? That is why I think the first two Zelda games are the most Zeldaey of the series.

Originally Posted by Ganonslayer2000

What makes your opinion flawed as to what makes a game Zeldaey is that you failed to mention this; Random hero(Link) armed with a sword similar to Excaliber saves random princess(Zelda). How much more Zeldaey do you need a game to be in order to be your ideal Zelda type game?? That is why I think the first two Zelda games are the most Zeldaey of the series.

MY opinion is flawed? If I follow your definition if what makes a Zelda game, then there are a good 50-odd Zelda games out there.

And LA, MM, and possibly the Oracle games aren't Zelda games as Zelda isn't kidnapped.

Originally Posted by groovemeister

MY opinion is flawed? If I follow your definition if what makes a Zelda game, then there are a good 50-odd Zelda games out there.

And LA, MM, and possibly the Oracle games aren't Zelda games as Zelda isn't kidnapped.

More like a thousand out there. Ever since the original LOZ was released in 1986, there has been countless of games based on the random hero with a sword saves princess formula. From World of Warcraft to Prince of Persia and to Everquest, today the Zeldaey elements in video games are standard and you have the original LOZ to thank for that.

The first two zelda games are what based the rest of the Zelda world, so THANK THEM

I would have to say the first two Zelda games weren't really that much epic as the others that followed. Heck, the LoZ and AoL prologues in the manuals had more to offer in the storylines than the game offered during its gameplay. I have too agree that these two games weren't interesting at all when you played them. AoL was a little interesting but not by much after LoZ, which hardly had any epicness at all. The purely had to add your own imagination to these two games when you played them, thats for sure.

Not "Zelda-ey"???? All you haters and nay-sayers out there are missing the point. In it's day, LoZ was THE epic! There wasNO other! The reason why OoT and MM and WW are what they are is because the original LoZ launched the platform! Do you think the sequels we have now and the one we are anticipating would exist if Hyrule and Link and Zelda and Gannon weren't first created in the wee hours of gaming development!!
Please put aside your mentality of modern graphics and think about what the LoZ really is!