The Legend of Zelda (the one for the NES) sucks!

Not trying to start a flame war or anything; just something that bugs me a little.
Many people claim that the first Legend of Zelda game for the NES is such a great game, but I just don't see it. The game goes for non-linearity, which is perfectly fine, but it goes way too far. It starts you off next to a cave where you can pick up a sword. Okay, fine. Now what? Where do you go? What's to do next? Let's try looking at the map..nope it's useless. Where are the dungeons? What do I need to get? None of this is explained. You're just on your own. I swear I wandered aimlessly for about two hours and was only able to find one temple. It's unnecessary. And this wouldn't be too bad if you knew WHERE you were going. Something as simple as a map (a better one) could have been put there so that the player knows where the hell to go. I'm seventeen years old and I can't beat the game; how is an eight year old supposed to do it? The game even came with a strategy guide because the developers knew they made the non-linearity a living hell. If someone bought this game used, without the guide, in the 80's and early 90's, he or she would have NO idea what to do. And a game shouldn't even need a guide; you should be able to play it without the need of one.
And it doesn't help that everything looks the same. Honestly do they really expect someone to know that he or she needs to burn a specific bush, or bomb a specific wall when said bush or wall looks the exact same as the others? There should be some indication. Not only that, but there are a ton of monsters in the game that can easily kill you with a few hits, many of them even harder than the dungeon bosses! Really?
I've tried to like this game and get into it, but its flaws are just way too much to handle.
Honestly I don't see the charm in this game. I love Zelda games to death, but this one is just bad, and whoever says that it's one of the best games created, I would really like to know how.

I will give you that by todays standards, the original Legend of Zelda is very flawed. Like you mentioned it has balance issues when it comes to enemies, a vast overworld that makes it easy to get lost and no clear indication of where to go next. It's the antithesis of modern games that hold your hand and guide you through every step of your journey. However, when you take at look at it from the perspective of when it just came out, this was absolutely ground breaking. Having a massive world wasn't a bad thing, you never got the chance for exploration on that scale before. Suddenly you had the freedom to explore, map out the world and share your discoveries with friends. This is well before you could grab a walkthrough on the internet, and this was also a big deal because unless I'm mistaken, it was the only game with a battery backup on the cartridge to save your progress. A lot of the repetition was caused by the technical limitations of the NES as well. All in all, while it's not the best game by modern standards, it deserves a special place just for how much it did for gaming, and how good it was back when it got released.

@sakura
No, I'm fine with the fact that it doesn't hold your hand. I'm actually more of a non-linear person, but the original LOZ is just sadistic in its non-linearity. And yes, I know it was "ground-breaking" but I fail to see why. And believe me I grew up with the NES and SNES classics, so I have quite an experience with these games. I just don't see how it was so widely praised. I mean, I can understand that the paths where you have to burn a particular bush is for secret caves that are only there for people who just want to get everything in the game, but when these cryptic and strange puzzles are actually required to further progress the game, it's a huge problem.
Castlevania: Simon's Quest is very similar to the original LOZ in that it gives you a massive world and you are required to do some heavy exploration and very bizarre things to progress, but it didn't receive as much praise as LOZ did. Why is that?
Just look at Super Metroid and A link to the Past. They were both non-linear with huge massive worlds, but they did it right. Neither of those games needed the aid of a strategy guide or walkthrough; they were just non-linear games that really immersed you without them getting repetitive and old. Hell, Super Metroid is my favorite game of all time because of how well it implemented the concept of non-linearity.
I understand what you're saying, though. It's just that the original LOZ never did it for me, even as a kid.

The thing is, you can't really compare it to Super Metroid and ALTTP because those are both on the next generation console after the NES. The NES itself just had too many technical limitations. Also it was ground breaking in the sense that nothing before it had offered quite the same experience. The sheer amount of areas to explore and things to do was something new. I'm not entirely sure what to say about Simon's Quest though, as from everything I've seen it was a very popular and well received game.

well, it isnt the fact that it sucks balls. Its just a starter off on the first game. If it could be remade into todays standard of a better game, i pretty sure it would be less flawed

But its just a persons opinion

The Legend of Zelda 1 came with an instruction manual (which told you how to find the first two dungeons), a mostly filled-in overworld map (showing the first four dungeon locations) and a miniature strategy guide (it had full maps of dungeons 1-2). There, you'll find hints to the locations of dungeons 7-9. The game should be judged by what came in the NES game box, not by the bare bones Virtual Console port.

Multimedia Gallery: Click image to close this window

Multimedia Gallery: Click image to close this window

Multimedia Gallery: Click image to close this window

I think the game's worst flaws are that bombable walls give no tell-tales whatsoever and that the red candle is obtained rather late in the game. Other than that, the old men hiding out in the dungeons do give fairly good hints, as do most of the overworld old men and women.

It's the game that started them all - whats not too love?

I wouldn't say TLoZ absolutely "sucks," as it was an important game for both the adventure and RPG genres. But I'm a bit fed up now by the praise the game gets from the “hard-core” gamers because I honestly think its one of the worst, least fun game in the series. Every time I read about how Zelda needs to "return to its roots" and recreate the experience in TLoZ, I just roll my eyes. If Zelda needs to look to its past (I don't agree with this), why not follow ALttP, an infinitely better game?

I think TLoZ has aged incredibly poorly, and I personally find it to be a boring, annoying, and tedious game to play. Part of it can be attributed to technological limitations, part of it to bad design choices. It's pretty comparable to another game that people tend to hold in high regard but also aged terribly, the original Metroid.

In both titles, the lack of an in-game map really hurts the experience, and combined with the limited early-NES graphics that made just about every screen look the same as the one before it, you will spend more time being lost than feeling like you’re making progress. Also in both games, there’s no context for the adventure or a clear objective to look forward to, just some vague idea of killing the big boss and saving the day. Both ALttP and Super Metroid have actual stories, and they utilize maps and mark the location of the destination on there, so you always have a goal to look forward to and a general sense of direction that you should go in.

There’s also the awful, dated controls and combat. In TLoZ, you can’t even move diagonally and your pathetic sword only hits the few pixels right in front of your face, so any swordplay revolves around running into enemy head-on and mashing the sword. But the boomerang can hit diagonally, so that means preventing diagonal movement and sword swinging was a design choice, not a limitation. In Metroid, you can’t even shoot diagonally or downwards, yet almost all the enemies are either too short to hit or too high to get a good shot of. In either case, the “action” part of action-adventure just isn’t fun.

Then there’s the cryptic bull crap. In that article “Saving Zelda” (where the author said each Zelda game was worst than the last), the guy praised the difficulty of discovering secrets in TLoZ and criticized the cracked walls in ALttP for being too obvious. I still can’t get over that because I think that aspect of TLoZ was just awful and deserving of no praise; does he praise “hit Deborah Cliff with your head to make a hole” for being difficult to figure out too? And it’s not something you can just ignore too, since even the entrances to dungeons and key items are hidden in these cryptic, obscure locations.

In TLoZ, there usually aren’t even HINTS to where the secrets are, and when there are, they aren’t even in English. To find a secret cave, you have to stock up on bombs and randomly bomb all the walls you see, hoping that there will be a secret behind it and memorizing which of the identical, bland walls you’ve already tested. That is NOT fun; that is tedious and stupid, and that type of trial-by-error game design philosophy is best left behind to the 80’s when it was acceptable. Back then, if you wanted to beat an adventure game like TLoZ or Castlevania II, you’d share discoveries with friends or buy yourself a copy of Nintendo Power, since the whole point of the cryptic crap in NES games was to artificially extend the length of the game while getting kids to buy the magazine for basically essential information.

Summary of TLoZ:
-no map, context, or clear objectives
-awful controls and combat
-cryptic bull crap and trial-by-error game design

So yeah, being non-linear and having no handholding doesn’t save TLoZ from being a mediocre game, just like they didn’t save E.T. the Extraterrestrial. It's definitely not the "roots" we want Zelda to turn back to, if that's a good idea at all.

Originally Posted by Majora425

The game goes for non-linearity, which is perfectly fine, but it goes way too far. It starts you off next to a cave where you can pick up a sword. Okay, fine. Now what? Where do you go? What's to do next? Let's try looking at the map..nope it's useless. Where are the dungeons? What do I need to get? None of this is explained. You're just on your own. I swear I wandered aimlessly for about two hours and was only able to find one temple. It's unnecessary. And this wouldn't be too bad if you knew WHERE you were going.

This little wonderful booklet can solve all your problems.
(Oh, why not ignore the countless guides and walkthroughs across the internet while your at it.)

Thegargoylevine:I think TLoZ has aged incredibly poorly, and I personally find it to be a boring, annoying, and tedious game to play. Part of it can be attributed to technological limitations, part of it to bad design choices. It's pretty comparable to another game that people tend to hold in high regard but also aged terribly, the original Metroid.

The original DIDN'T suck when it came out, and write frankly, I enjoy playing the original.
The game was great for its time period, but it isn't three highest quality game out there. Granted, the graphics do not trend to appeal to most gamers of this generation, but bear in mind that the hand kicked ass then, and that's all that matters.

Just look up the overworld map online and maybe a dungeon map or two and have them handy while you play. I just beat it a few weeks ago and it only took me a day. Not that hard.

On its own I can consider a great game by 190s standards, but it fails immensely compared to every other game in the series. No towns or anything. I did bring up a similar summary as you in a thread about one's least favourite game in the Zelda series. I would argue that even Zelda II is better than it's predecessor bearing being all side-scroll and immensely difficult. It has people, towns and more structure.

Originally Posted by mmduval

It's the game that started them all - whats not too love?

Hardly, I would argue. It started the concept of hero, princess and villain (however, I wouldn't count that because it's a story classic concept even earlier), but it was quite shallow about it. It started the actual Zelda theme, yes. And the multiple dungeons idea present in almost every game. And the TriTwoforce. Death Mountain as well. However, nearly everything that makes up the Zelda series was introduced in A Link to the Past including backstories, mythology and music as well as several major locations and other concepts.

The Legend of Zelda 1 gave us overworld exploration (pushing rocks and graves, bombing walls, burning bushes, playing recorders and taking the correct path through mazes). It introduced nearly every classic franchise enemy (e.g., Octoroks, Moblins, Leevers, Tektites, Keese, Stalfos, Darknuts, Wizzrobes, Like Likes, etc.), a permanent inventory (Boomerang, Bombs, Bow, Flute, Potion, Candle, Magical Rod), and dungeons with maps, compasses, special items, bosses and heart containers. Zelda 1 also gave us warping (staircases and the Recorder) and upgradable weapons/items/tunics. What it didn't give us was fetching Zora eggs, dredging up doodads from the ocean floor, sniffing out Tears of Light (repeatedly!) or awkwardly swimming around for Tadtones. Hmpf!

I'm disgusted to see this thread on a so-called Zelda forum. Maybe it should be called the "Aonuma Universe Forums."

I started to like this game only after I learned where everything is in it. After that it can be pretty fun, personally I find the combat difficulty very suitable for my skills although sometimes it's still a little harder than it has to. Place it next to pretty much any other Zelda game and it's not that great anymore. I recognise its influence and value in the history of gaming and all that stuff, but it's dated to the point that you most likely won't get much enjoyment out of the most of it unless you've grown up playing it. I first played it once when I was about 17, then played it again with enough dedication to beat it when I was 23.

I think it is a little unfair to compare it to later games with superior technology and more planning like Super Metroid and ALTTP. The original LoZ was much much earlier than that. It was even an early step in Nintendo's history and they were still building on what can and cannot be accomplished on the NES. LoZ was an early and simple game by NES standards as well. Even comparing it to other NES games that came out in the early 90's is not quite as fair either. Remember the more sophisticated NES games came much later on. And Nintendo did improve on the style with later games like Star Tropics later on which had similar gameplay but much more character interaction that helped you move along more easily. It was innovative in that you did not move from one level to the next which was the standard at the time.

The same could be said for their other older series as well. Just compare the first Super Mario Bros to Mario 3 on the same system.



The first one was a blocky looking simplistic adventure with just a couple powerups but every level was basically the same. Make it to the right while avoiding traps and enemies. While the third game has a gigantic expansive world with several maps, repeatable levels, a method to store multiple powerups, character interaction, minigames, multiple powerups that give a variety of abilities, and a huge variety in environments. Even on the same system Nintendo was greatly building upon what they originally created with the first much more simple game in the series. I do not see why Zelda is any different. Just as Mario was a simple platformer and the first step in that direction, Zelda was their first adventure game and only had to build up from there.

Even the first Megaman, Castlevania, Final Fantasy, and Metroid games did not get it right the first time around. They were very simplistic games that did not yet have the very few elements of the series that makes it so memorable and enjoyable for fans. In fact they were incredibly hard. I can see how some people who have in a way been "spoiled" by later series would not really be able to go back and play a much simpler game and really see it for what it is. They are just too simple.

I don't think the first one is bad. It all depends on how old you are and how much respect and experience you have for older games. I'm only 16, but I could care less about graphics, multiplayer, etc. Give me a good game and I'll play it.

Like everyone else said, for today's standards, LoZ was pretty bad. BUT, you have to think, back when it first came out it was a very innovative game and tons of people loved it. It's kind of like the first 3 Resident Evil games; they we're amazing when they came out, but now days people won't play them again because of there out dated controls.

You also have to think, LoZ was Nintendo's first experience with Zelda. It's hard for a developer to make there first game in a series...well...right. Take the Uncharted series for example, Uncharted 1 was decent, but 2 & 3 were amazing. There has to be a foundation to build from

I personally love The Legend of Zelda, yes, it isn't the greatest game in the series, but thats only because it was only the first in a long line of excellent games.

Originally Posted by sakura

The thing is, you can't really compare it to Super Metroid and ALTTP because those are both on the next generation console after the NES. The NES itself just had too many technical limitations. Also it was ground breaking in the sense that nothing before it had offered quite the same experience. The sheer amount of areas to explore and things to do was something new. I'm not entirely sure what to say about Simon's Quest though, as from everything I've seen it was a very popular and well received game.

I get that they are next gen games, but adding something as basic as a map isn't too difficult. And I understand that it brought new things to the table, but was it really necessary to make the game puzzles and secrets so complicated and tedious?
I love Zelda, so I want to be able to play the game that started it all, but when I start to play a game like this, I just can't go through with it.
I'm fine with the exploration, but they should have put some sort of indication as to what you could bomb or burn, instead of requiring you to buy a bunch of bombs and blow up every single pixel in the game. It's just frustrating.

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

Originally Posted by mmduval

It's the game that started them all - whats not too love?

No. I don't give in to that. It started the franchise, yes, but there should be no reason why they couldn't have made the game less cryptic.

---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Z-MAN7

This little wonderful booklet can solve all your problems.
(Oh, why not ignore the countless guides and walkthroughs across the internet while your at it.)

I am aware of the booklet or the guides across the internet, but my point is that games should not have the need to require such things. A video game should just be about you and the game...that's it. The only time a guide might be necessary is if you're trying to go for acquiring everything in the game. Even then, a guide can be avoided. The reason why TLOZ fails is that without some sort of strategy book, the game is literally un-playable, at least as far as progression goes.

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Jin;4707952

The same could be said for their other older series as well. Just compare the first Super Mario Bros to Mario 3 on the same system.
[img

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-extOjZpBe64/T4aS4lFaQ7I/AAAAAAAAF8w/TkrWjhfT_qQ/s1600/Free+Download+PC+Mini+Games+Super+Mario+Bros+Full+ Rip+Version+%2528classic+game%2529+gratis.jpg[/img]


The first one was a blocky looking simplistic adventure with just a couple powerups but every level was basically the same. Make it to the right while avoiding traps and enemies. While the third game has a gigantic expansive world with several maps, repeatable levels, a method to store multiple powerups, character interaction, minigames, multiple powerups that give a variety of abilities, and a huge variety in environments. Even on the same system Nintendo was greatly building upon what they originally created with the first much more simple game in the series. I do not see why Zelda is any different. Just as Mario was a simple platformer and the first step in that direction, Zelda was their first adventure game and only had to build up from there.

Even the first Megaman, Castlevania, Final Fantasy, and Metroid games did not get it right the first time around. They were very simplistic games that did not yet have the very few elements of the series that makes it so memorable and enjoyable for fans. In fact they were incredibly hard. I can see how some people who have in a way been "spoiled" by later series would not really be able to go back and play a much simpler game and really see it for what it is. They are just too simple.

Adding something as simple as a map is not hard. Or maybe putting in some HELPFUL hints instead of the useless garbage the NPC's say in the game wouldn't have been hurt anyone.
The difference with Mario is that the first game is simple. Albeit the whole no continue option is quite irritating sometimes, but it was a game a kid could play and beat with ease. TLOZ is no where near close to that. Without a guide, a kid is going to get frustrated by the game because he just won't know where to go. If the guide that came with the game is somehow lost, a kid in the late 80's would be screwed.
Making a game hard is fine, but TLOZ isn't really hard, just annoying and incredibly tedious. The bosses are a joke in the game; the only hard part is figuring out where to go and the wonky controls.
And actually Zelda 1 was my second Zelda game. I played it as a kid, so I'm not really spoiled by anything. It's just a bad game.

---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------

Originally Posted by SouthpawLink

[I}
I'm disgusted to see this thread on a so-called Zelda forum. Maybe it should be called the "Aonuma Universe Forums."

It's called an opinion. Learn to deal with it.

Originally Posted by SouthpawLink

I'm disgusted to see this thread on a so-called Zelda forum. Maybe it should be called the "Aonuma Universe Forums."

Originally Posted by Majora425

It's called an opinion. Learn to deal with it.

I have to agree with the OP here on this one.






If someone has a different opinion to yours, please learn to respect it and move on.

I don't want things to get sour in here thanks.

It's the antithesis of modern games that hold your hand and guide you through every step of your journey.

This is part of what made that game so wonderful to me. I could do the dungeons in virtually any order i wanted if i had the right items. Cant even do that in Zelda II. ALttP sorta gave us that back but yeah. LoZ is pretty amazing to me because i remember when it first came out. IT WAS A BIG DEAL! It was one of the first games on the NES (and virtually ever) that allowed that kind of exploration.

Yeah it has some cryptic hints and bad translation, but i still love that game loads.

Originally Posted by Majora425

I am aware of the booklet or the guides across the internet, but my point is that games should not have the need to require such things. A video game should just be about you and the game...that's it. The only time a guide might be necessary is if you're trying to go for acquiring everything in the game. Even then, a guide can be avoided. The reason why TLOZ fails is that without some sort of strategy book, the game is literally un-playable, at least as far as progression goes.

Well the truth is, my fine friend, is that games in the days of the NES could not waste memory and cartridge space with in game tutorials. You learned by actually playing it.

You see, it was the manual's job to teach you the more obscure things, that most 8-bit games from over 20 years ago could not while in the game.

In Zelda's manual you learn about:
1. The story/ultimate goal.
2. How to control Link and fight enemies
3. A list of items and equipment you can find
4. A quick guide on how to navigate the overworld and labyrinths
5. A small map that shows you the location of the first and second labyrinths

It's all basic info you need to play and understand how the game works. The next few dungeons are actually somewhat easy with right equipment. (Blue Ring, White Sword)

Here's what I ask of you. Drop all your negative bias and start fresh.

You can download a digital copy of LoZ's booklet here

Here is map of the entire overworld, with labyrinth locations.