134
« on: May 20, 2009, 11:14:30 PM »
I really enjoyed Zelda 2 when I was playing it back in 2007, as I said in the earlier thread I had more fun with this than with Twilight Princess due to its different mechanics and challenging but fun combat. Unfortunately I don't have access to a Wii or NES so I can't play along this time, but I was wondering, can you guys tell me how far into the game I was and some idea of how much there is to go after that till the end? I never had a sense of how much there really was to do or how lengthy the quest would be and I'm quite curious.
I got the candle and hammer and finished the exploration of the caves in the south west...and I remember a task involving looking for a hidden place in a graveyard, but after that I don't think I had gotten to a subsequent temple.
The NPC interaction stuff is needlessly complicated due to the poor translation so that aspect I found surprisingly difficult, a complete contrast to the overly cloying usage of coloured text to indicate a message of significance in the 3D Zeldas. Wish they would find a compromise between these two extremes.
The temples were generally quite enjoyable, I love the statues at the entrance, I seem to remember they'd give you health most of the time when you attacked them but once the statue came to life and attacked? Would really like to play this again. Of course the music is fantastic which really helps the fun gleaned from the dungeons, but it's more than that. It was talked about on RFN about how Zelda was made for 3D before it was technically feasible, but in this case I feel the 2D approach Zelda 2 took lends itself to an entirely different form for the dungeons that disposes with that line of thought - I don't find this game to anticipate 3D. The 2D scrolling screen makes these dungeons feel far more like Metroid or Prince of Persia than what would now be called Zelda. This is because the modern 3D Zeldas greatly take advantage of their extra dimension and dungeons are a linear set of rooms, each generally a self contained puzzle or event with an occasional manipulation of a central mechanism in the hub of a level (Water temple in OOT). Zelda 2 is bound by its lack of items and reliance on combat instead of environmental puzzles, and navigating the dungeon feels more engaged with the RPG and action elements of its DNA, RPG-like grinding and combat, as opposed to the puzzle/adventure aspects which became more prevalent in more recent years. The layout of dungeons is also altered too, and I mentioned Metroid earlier because of the side scrolling dimensions meaning rooms can only have four possible exits (left to right, right to left, or lifts going up or down) and the difference in perspective necessitate a lack of complexity in layout and add the need to backtrack. Backtracking, whilst kept down to an extent, is far more prevalent here than with the overhead perspective. Similarly the repetition of graphics in the backrounds etc. and the abundance of enemy encounters (resulting in a scarcity of architectural uniqueness) makes navigational memory a pertinent tool to get through the dungeons. Sharply at ends with the traditional notions of seeking out the map and compass in order to gain advance knowledge of notable locations in a dungeon, i.e. the boss' lair.
Anyway I guess I'm taking a long time to get to a short point; overall I enjoyed the differently emphasised gameplay aspects in this game to other Zeldas, but that doesn't by any means make it a great game, yet such a departure inevitably has repercussions beyond merely the limited scope of the game itself for the series as a whole. Significant without being magnificent. For this alone I feel it deserves praise as I'm sure many are with me in agreement that there is a staleness to the Zelda series due to its predictability.
I find it interesting that the discussion in this thread has addressed the flexibility of linearity in the game, and there's a parallel with the game in its context as a member of the Zelda club, as I found that coming at this game after experiencing the monotony of the series as a whole since Link to the Past notarises its differentiating factors - note that I'm only saying this in reference to certain recurring tropes, most notably the dungeons, as they form a sizeable bulk of each game's content. Link's Awakening was my first and consequently most enjoyable Zelda for me personally, and all further entries with the exception of the mild kick in the balls jolt of the third dimension continued along the same tropes predictably mechanically and structurally despite a number of aesthetic and cosmetic changes. Coming to Zelda 2 in 2007 after the establishment of the series as a whole is what makes this whole retroactive discussion so worthwhile. Suddenly the precedent for a different approach to dungeons, to an overworld, to combat, to life and death and to perspective is set in stone and stands to me as a great source of potential for the future.
How does this game stand to impact upon the future of the Zelda series and the next entry in the series? Does the promise of change and the roughness of Zelda 2 suggest a refinement of its core mechanics might be in the works? Too drastic some might say, but look what a shift in emphasis did for the Resident Evil series.
Ok that's enough soliloquising.
Show Posts
It's fairly similar to Ninja Gaiden, but much more playable from what I hear (read: it doesn't have a bat**** insane difficulty level).
