CD-i (Honestly, Just Read It)

First of all, I want to apologize to venjek, because I know you started a thread similar to this one in General Zelda, but it kind of went off topic. Now then, on to the main stuff.

All right, I have for years, heard nothing, nothing but negative comments towards these CD-i games (Link: Faces of Evil, Zelda: Wand of Gamelon, & Zelda's Adventures), and I myself have just laughed at these, and ridiculed them, claiming them to be the worst games ever made. However, I have recently watched videos of the games being played (except for Zelda's Adventures), and to be completely and utterly honest, they weren't all that bad, and definitely not the worst games ever made. I am in no way saying that they were as good as any Nintendo developed, but for what the CD-i could do, and for what Phillips was allowed to do, they did a decent job. Now don't go calling me insane, or an idiot, or a non-Zelda fan for seeing some interest in these games, because I bet less than 10% of you have actually either played it, or even watched the GAMEPLAY videos. No, the majority of the Zelda fans here have only seen what is known as YouTube Poop, which mainly makes fun of CD-i games. From this only the cutscenes are used, and I will admit that the cutscenes and scripting is horrendous. But one of the points I am trying to stress is that it is sad, that we Zelda fans could go so far as to mock and ridicule a game that does not deserve the ridicule. Honestly, yes, the cutscenes are pretty horrible, and the scripting just as much, but really the actual gameplay is not that bad. Don't believe me? Watch this (if you don't like HalfBlindGamer's voice, deal with it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3WT9n5yRvc

I beg of you, just watch the videos of Link: Faces of Evil, and if you want to continue on, you can watch HalfBlindGamer's Zelda: Wand of Gamelon.

After watching the videos, you can see that they are similar to the Adventure of Link, but different. But still, it retains fundamental Zelda concepts, such as upgrading your sword, collecting currency (rupees vs. rubies), exploring the world, obtaining better items, defeating enemies, fighting bosses, and so on. It has all the fundamentals of a Zelda game, and for its time is not that bad of a game. Think about the game with better cutscenes, updated, or no cutscenes at all. It would be better and not ridiculed as much, because it plays great. The only con of the gameplay is cheap deaths and bad jumping (of which can be improved as one plays). So why can't we Zelda players get over the horrible cutscenes, and see the game as it was meant to be seen, as a decent approach to new Zelda games developed by a third party? I mean really, even as I watched it, I laughed at how horrible the cutscenes were, and was horrified by them, but after the first of HalfBlindGamer's videos of Link: Faces of Evil, I just couldn't stop watching, and I started to want to play the games. I cannot stress this enough, that for what the CD-i could do, and for what Phillips could do, the games are decent. Please tell me I am not alone among the Zelda players of having an interest in playing these games.

you know if the games were polished up (graphics and story) and better cutsence the game could sell.
I am suprised to see that nintendo is hiding there problem instead of fixing it by remakeing the games so they can put it behind them. (possibly wiiware games I would think.)

Well I personally don't think that the graphics need to be updated, except of course for the cutscenes. I think that the graphics add to the nostalgia of the game, just like not as many Zelda fans want updated Legend of Zelda, or updated Adventure of Link compared to those who want the graphics to stay the same.

Yeah, after seeing the videos I kind of am ashamed of Nintendo, for not only hiding these games, but also not manning up to the fact that they licensed (to an extent) Phillips to make these games. If Nintendo hadn't given them the rights to make the games, there wouldn't be in this problem. So Nintendo needs to man up, and just accept these games as what they are, Zelda games, and fix them to a better state. I highly doubt they will ever do this, seeing as gamers are more focused on the now games, and not the then games, so I doubt we will ever see the CD-i games ported to Wii Ware or the VC (darn... that means I will have to buy a CD-i, and the games).

i dont think they want to revisit them

i have always wanted to get a cd-i but they are so expensive for the worst games ever.

back on subject nintendo should at least hire a small team to remove (or edit) the cutsense and then put it on wiiware and profit.

I watched a review done of the game by Angry Video Game Nerd.

If the review is trustworthy, which it is, then the game has absolutely craptastic controls.

Not to mention it's design isn't even sound. Artificial difficulty is everywhere in that game, such as in the fact that oil can run out, pits that can instantly kill you, etc.

No, sorry, but the CD-i games really are terribad, and are almost as bad as the cutscenes are.

And I would definitely never spend $600 just to play them.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

I watched a review done of the game by Angry Video Game Nerd.

If the review is trustworthy, which it is, then the game has absolutely craptastic controls.

Not to mention it's design isn't even sound. Artificial difficulty is everywhere in that game, such as in the fact that oil can run out, pits that can instantly kill you, etc.

No, sorry, but the CD-i games really are terribad, and are almost as bad as the cutscenes are.

And I would definitely never spend $600 just to play them.

Don't watch the Angry Video Game Nerd's videos of the game. Instead watch HalfBlindGamer's videos. He does a much better job, and also pokes a little fun at it. The only bad controls is the jumping. Actually the design is pretty sound. Though the difficulty is pretty high, you have unlimited lives, which makes the game easier, but if you die, you respawn back at the last door you went through (unlike other Zelda games in which you start all the way back at the beginning of the dungeon). If you run out of oil, you are horrible at the game, plain and simple. If you watch HalfBlindGamer's videos, he never runs out by the time he gets the magical lantern (which doesn't need lamp oil). Much of the concepts of infinite lives, dark places, instant kill pits, and so on, were to make the game longer, or else people would fly through it in about 10 minutes. You have also got to remember that a review shows a single person's attitude toward a game, small pieces of the gameplay, for the CD-i it probably showed more cutscenes than gameplay, and they focus mainly on the bad things of a game. Any game they will focus on the bad, even OOT or MM. So don't let one review turn you off. Watch HalfBlindGamer's videos, then talk to me.

And yes I know that they are expensive, and that is why Nintendo needs to make it available on the VC or Wii Ware for those Zelda fans striving to have 100% completion on every single Zelda game. There are going to be players out there who will want to play it, so yeah why not make a profit?

And venjek, they are definitely not the worst games ever made trust me. There are a lot worse. They do deserve the spot for worst cutscenes, but not the worst games.

You should watch the Angry Video Game Nerd's rant about them.

Can't say i can agree with you after watching that video, but i must say, i had a good laugh!

"When I crouch, you can make me do the duck walk! Cool, huh?"

"Rubies!"

Must admit, the graphics probably were better than some for its time, but the battle system seems frustrating and awful, that guy died atleast 4 times when in that first area.

I laughed at them once, thinking it was funny.

One day I played both Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon, since that day, I haven't ever laughed at those games again.... I don't think they deserve laughter, they deserve hatred, with the full meaning of the word, one of the worst games I ever played.

Yes, I agree they are not THE worst game ever, but still, they are just......... Hell, even I have made better games than those...

Originally Posted by Khao

I don't think they deserve laughter, they deserve hatred, with the full meaning of the word, one of the worst games I ever played.

Yes, I agree they are not THE worst game ever, but still, they are just......... Hell, even I have made better games than those...

Khao, were you comparing them to greater games, such as the Zelda games developed by NINTENDO? If so, then yes, they would be hated for being horrible. But don't compare them to anything, take them for what they were, a decent approach to a Zelda game. Honestly what didn't you like about the game Khao? What made it as you say, "deserve hatred"? They really cannot be all that bad. And also, remember that the CD-i was not developed for games, it was for other things. The gaming ability is just what they added in. So of course you can make better games, we have better tools for making the games, more fellow gamers and coders to share ideas with. The programmers of the game only got one thing from Nintendo, and that was the ability to use a specified amount of Nintendo material. They did not consult anyone else. For the programmers, that was probably their first games ever made (and possibly their last, I don't know). So as you can see the Phillips game engineers were inexperienced per say, and were not granted, nor did they search for help with the games. The programming capabilities were new back then, and not much could be done. But really, I would like to hear what you have to say, of why it deserves hatred.

And PocketCucco, I already have stated that the scripting and not to mention the animations are horrendous. I have already also stated that the fighting is in a way, incredibly difficult, but also that is why they put in infinite lives, and starting from the last door you entered. Yes, HalfBlindGamer dies quite a bit in the games, but how many times did you die in Adventure of Link? I felt that Adventure of Link's difficulty was insane. Do you disagree? At least the CD-i games did not start you from the starting point of the game each time you got a game over, of which actually don't exist in the CD-i games. Though the CD-i games had unfair difficulty, they also implemented ways to alleviate this frustration. HalfBlindGamer does have some stupid deaths (by that I mean unfair), but it isn't as much of a burden as say, dying in Adventure of Link now is it?

Im just going to say that Ganon was a buzzkill. He dies when you use the wand of Gamelon. It was a waste of time having Ganon say "You will DIE" if he is that easy to beat.

Originally Posted by Zelfreakv1

Actually the design is pretty sound.

Much of the concepts of infinite lives, dark places, instant kill pits, and so on, were to make the game longer, or else people would fly through it in about 10 minutes.

That's not sound design.

Lives (infinite or not) should be there in case the player screws up, given as encouragment to continue.

Lives (infinite or not) shouldn't be there for the sake of fake difficulty.

You have also got to remember that a review shows a single person's attitude toward a game,

I usually find myself agreeing with that single person (AVGN).

small pieces of the gameplay, for the CD-i it probably showed more cutscenes than gameplay,

The review was mostly gameplay. The cutscenes were played a couple of times just as an exclamation point for how bad the game was.

and they focus mainly on the bad things of a game. Any game they will focus on the bad, even OOT or MM.

No, he had good things to say about the game.

And venjek, they are definitely not the worst games ever made trust me. There are a lot worse. They do deserve the spot for worst cutscenes, but not the worst games.

I never said they are the worst games ever.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

That's not sound design.

Lives (infinite or not) should be there in case the player screws up, given as encouragment to continue.

Lives (infinite or not) shouldn't be there for the sake of fake difficulty.



I usually find myself agreeing with that single person (AVGN).



The review was mostly gameplay. The cutscenes were played a couple of times just as an exclamation point for how bad the game was.



No, he had good things to say about the game.



I never said they are the worst games ever.

Okay TheBattler, have you played the games? If not, you can't depend on one review, rather quite a few reviews. You need to play it yourself to find out if you enjoy it or not.

About your statement with the lives, technically don't you have infinite lives on Adventure of Link? When you get a game over aren't you given full lives again? To answer both, yes you are. It was also put in AoL for encouragement because Nintendo knew it was hard, and the players needed those lives. Therefore they were there for both encouragement and for the sake of the difficulty.

Yes, he may have had good things to say about the game, but didn't he focus on the bad things more? If not tell me. Most reviewers do this. Spending time on the bad parts than the good parts.

Please TheBattler give me the youtube link for the AngryVideoGameNerd's review.

Oh, and venjek, yeah Ganon was way too easy. Seeing as in either game it took one hit (Book of Koridai or the Wand of Gamelon). But I think they did that because getting to him was supposed to be hard, and frustrating, so they wanted to make it easy for the player.

I agree, these games have been ridiculed enough, have any of the ridiculer's taken the time to play teh game before ridiculing it? See it fro what it is and not what it's not. I for one have played these games, and seriously people, they are really fun and good games to play. (They'd sell a lot at certain places, too. xP) Play these games and then make a decision.

The gameplay..... It's the gameplay, it's just so horrible, it feels like it barely works, jumping is useless and awkward, the item menu is kind of confusing, it's difficult, but not in a "Oh I want to keep trying until I do it!" way, it's more like in "Oh god please try to recognize the commands I give you correctly!" and "why everything is so useless!" (even when all you can do is jump, slash and throw rocks.)

I don't compare them to the greater Zelda games, I compare them to gaming in general, and any decent game that exists.

I get far more fun with Pong.

Even then, these games are far better than Big Riggs or E.T.

The Angry Video Game Nerd showed us exactly how awful the CD-I games were and so did this guy. You see, people say they suck because they have played the games. The CD-I games may be good for laughs, but that's probably all they'll be good for.

Originally Posted by Link367

I agree, these games have been ridiculed enough, have any of the ridiculer's taken the time to play teh game before ridiculing it? See it fro what it is and not what it's not. I for one have played these games, and seriously people, they are really fun and good games to play. (They'd sell a lot at certain places, too. xP) Play these games and then make a decision.

Agreed. I bet only 1% of the ridiculers have played the games. Maybe less than that. Yeah, I haven't played it, rather watched it being played, and just couldn't stop watching. Then I started wanting to play it. Unfortunately I don't have a CD-i and they aren't on the VC or Wii Ware, so I will have to get a CD-i later. I mean the only bad thing is the cheap deaths, bad jumping, easy enemies. They kept the core concepts of Zelda. You upgrade, explore, fight, use a shield, etc. Not to mention that the backgrounds, and soundtracks are pretty good.

Khao, I told you DON'T compare them to any game. Jumping is definitely not useless, and it just takes time to get used to. To access the item menu (says how in help, if you didn't watch it) is to hold down and press 2. Not that hard if you ask me. Yes there are useless items in the game, but the items were given to help you seeing as there is a medium-high difficulty. There are useless items in every Zelda game, that might only be used once or twice (maybe just to experiment). Take for example OOT and MM, personally I never use Deku Nuts and find them useless. But they didn't impede my progress, and they don't make me hate the game. I say, you need to get past that and take it as a Zelda game. Each game has its flaws and pros. Usually they are balanced, some games go exceptional, while the others stay balanced. This game is not exceptional but it is balanced, whether you think so or not.

Originally Posted by Zelfreakv1

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="2"]Okay TheBattler, have you played the games? If not, you can't depend on one review, rather quite a few reviews. You need to play it yourself to find out if you enjoy it or not.

Ah, so you're telling me to go play the game and not rely on one review...

But isn't that what you're doing?

About your statement with the lives, technically don't you have infinite lives on Adventure of Link?

Did I ever say Adventure of Link is a great game?

And it's different in Adventure of Link, because the game wasn't stupidly hard until around endgame, and you had the option to grind experience to make the game easier.

But that doesn't mean Adventure of Link was a great game.

Yes, he may have had good things to say about the game, but didn't he focus on the bad things more? If not tell me. Most reviewers do this. Spending time on the bad parts than the good parts.

Please TheBattler give me the youtube link for the AngryVideoGameNerd's review.

You couldn't find it yourself? He's a very popular. Oh well:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/an...ewattack/42566

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Ah, so you're telling me to go play the game and not rely on one review...

But isn't that what you're doing?



Did I ever say Adventure of Link is a great game?

And it's different in Adventure of Link, because the game wasn't stupidly hard until around endgame, and you had the option to grind experience to make the game easier.

But that doesn't mean Adventure of Link was a great game.



You couldn't find it yourself? He's a very popular. Oh well:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/an...ewattack/42566

Actually no, I personally have not had the chance to play it, but I have watched countless reviews of which mostly bashed on it. While watching the review I have seen the gameplay while the reviews were going, and I thought I would like to play it.

And no, you didn't say AoL was a good game. But it is not being ridiculed, and is considered great by the majority of Zelda players. You get experience yes, but you also get a whole bunch of useless spells, and items you can't even use in-game (against enemies that is). The CD-i games kept it simple, only give you items that help you progress and that can be used. And actually if you have no idea what you are doing, you actually do die a lot in the beginning of AoL. And what is tedious of AoL is that basically you have to fully level up before heading for the final temple, because the path there is so treacherous, and not to mention the dungeon is quite difficult. The CD-i games didn't have you do this tedious leveling up. And the only thing stupidly hard in the CD-i games was shielding and jumping.

Obviously he is not that popular. I searched him on Youtube, and it came up with nothing for him. Just finished Wand of Gamelon portion, and it is clear he did not spend enough time learning to play, and getting used to the controls. The only good things he mentioned were graphics (of which he said were %$@# in the mid-video) and the music. Everything he complained of were things that you get used to, and things that are used to lengthen the game. So I am not going to watch the rest of the videos because I can already tell he is biased towards hating the game, and won't show the truth, that it is a decent game.