Topic: Eiji Aonuma Never Completed Zelda 1

[King Bowser Koopa]

The Zelda developer has never finished the original NES game.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/27743

Nintendo bigwig Eiji Aonuma, producer and director of Zelda games since the days of the Nintendo 64, has admitted to never completing the game that launched the series.

In an interview with Game Informer, Aonuma was asked of his thoughts about the original Legend of Zelda.

"I’ve never actually finished it," he said.

"I almost feel like there’s still no game more difficult than it. Every time I try to play it I end up getting 'Game Over' a few too many times and giving up partway through. Certainly after playing the original Zelda for the first time, I didn’t ever think that I wanted to make a game like that."

It was the SNES chapter of Zelda's saga, A Link to the Past, that first drew Aonuma to the series. The open-world exploration hooked him in and heavily influenced the creation of Marvelous: Mohitotsu no Takarajima (Another Treasure Island), the first game he ever produced. Marvelous impressed Miyamoto in such a way that it eventually lead Aonuma to joining the Zelda team.

[broodwars]

Eh, it's an amusing side note that he's never finished the first Zelda, but I've never finished it either so no big deal.  It is a hard and cryptically-designed game.  I'll take him spending his time working on new Zelda games instead.

[TheYoungerPlumber]

I'm pretty sure Mr. Aonuma has discussed his dislike for Zelda 1 compared with Zelda 2 & 3 during at least one GDC presentation in the past.

EDIT: Found sources from 2004!

Listen to the (still active) audio recording of mine from Mr. Aonuma's 2004 presentation. A transcript of this can also be found here. The relevant excerpt:

Immediately after I started playing the original Zelda, I failed to read the movements of the Octoroks that appeared in the field, and my game suddenly came to an end. Even after getting used to the controls, each time the screen scrolled to a new area, new Octoroks appeared, and I thought "Am I going to have to fight these things forever???" Eventually I gave up getting any further in the game.

[Luigi Dude]

Considering the original Zelda is literally impossible to beat without a guide, I'd imagine at least 90% of everyone who's played it never completed the game.  Plus it doesn't help that even with a guide, it's still a very cheap game since Links sword is way too damn short making combat more frustrating then fun.

[Pale]

Speaking about how context plays such an important role in the enjoyment of games, Zelda 1 is still one of my favorite games.

Yes it is a scavenger hunt of grand proportions, but there are hints throughout the game. Because of the effort put forth, I still remember where basically everything is (in the first quest at least). I played the game in grade school and had several friends playing it simultaneously. It was the regular lunch-time conversation for quite some time. We would share what we had found, be it locations of dungeons themselves, or just random special things. We coined our own terms for things. In a way, it was my first truly social gaming experience (outside of playing co-op games with my sisters).

As such, I thoroughly enjoyed playing Zelda 1. It's probably one of my most replayed game. I've finished the first quest countless times.

LttP is still my favorite game of all time though.

[ejamer]

"Considering the original Zelda is literally impossible to beat without a guide..."

Not true!  I can't imagine many people beating the game for the first today without using a guide, but when I was a kid we invested a lot of time into games looking for every possible secret and searching to uncover hidden treasures. The internet didn't exist, so there weren't many guides available unless you were lucky enough to have a Nintendo Power issue covering the game.

Zelda can be beaten with some persistence and smart play, but is a long and difficult game if you discover everything on your own. This type of challenge isn't appreciated now and video games favor hand-holding over exploration because they know that making things too difficult will cause the vast majority of "gamers" to simply give up and move on to the next game.

But the beauty of Zelda is that once you've solved difficult puzzles on your own, or discovered well-hidden secrets, you tend to remember them well. Each time you revisit Zelda it gets easier to progress until eventually you've mastered the game. At that point (much like Metroid) the challenge becomes how quickly you can run through the game... although I don't think there is any real sequence breaking to be done here.

[Chozo Ghost]

I remember secret caves and doorways you could access by placing bombs in certain places and there were secret places you could get by burning down certain bushes or moving certain statues and so forth. Most of these things would be very unlikely to be discovered be mere chance. I only learned because I saw someone else playing it and they showed me some of the secrets, but I still don't think I know about all of them.

I never beat the game either. I was just a little kid when I first played it.

[Pale]

It isn't hard to discover things by chance, it just takes the hunting mentality. Burning and bombing everything. It may not be for everyone.

But, like I said, I think part of the brilliant (and probably on accident) design is that it works best when you have someone to share findings with.

[Ceric]

I beat Zelda 1 before getting a guide for it.  I missed a few things, Blue Ring, the first go around but I had the advantage of seeing different parts with a friend.  I really don't think its that bad.  I know my best has been doing the whole game from scratch in one sitting at roughly 30min - 1hour.  Though a game that I don't think you can beat without a guide is Crystalis.  How was I suppose to know those boots were in that generic tile?

Also on the first Zelda I love how you can pretty much do all the dungeons out of order.  Which I normally did.  I might go and visit one for an item but, I go get other ones first.

[King Bowser Koopa]

Absolutely - the first few rooms of Dungeon 3 were always great for rupee farming until you could afford that next ring/item/whatever. I've finished the first quest at least 3 times, and the second once that I can remember. I'll admit I did need to look up a map towards the end, but had I a NES during its prime instead of my paltry little Atari 2600, I would totally have spent the time and effort drawing up my own maps and taking notes until I'd solved it all on my own. In fact, almost all game manuals for the NES and SNES had a few blank memo pages in the back just for note-taking so you could remember that path sequence or puzzle solution.

Gamers these days are so impatient and quick to rage-quit.

[marty]

Zelda wasn't a relatively hard game.  It was just a bit more complex than other Nintendo games--just opaque; like many other game of the time were.  All the enemies are pretty easily defeated and there aren't any really cheap moments in the game--unlike many games of that era that were difficult because of cheap AI/bad design.

I don't think a lot of people realize how huge NES Zelda became.  Cartoons on network TV, breakfast cereal, and merch up the ass.  Some people will look at OoT or other games as the pinnacle, but they weren't nearly as popular or ground-breaking as the NES games.  The first Zelda game is a certified classic--hearing Aonuma talk about not being able to get past the octorocks is like hearing a film maker brag about only watching the first 10 minutes of Casablanca--no wonder these games have fallen out of favor with people--they're being made by people that don't get what made them so memorable in the first place. 

Zelda 1 is challenging--but if you don't give up and learn to play the game, it makes sense and reveals itself to be this brilliant game that deserves the reverence it earned.  Some things in the game are dated--like critical secrets not being more obvious--but the open world is great and so is the ability to tackle dungeons or the sword quests as you see fit.  It's the freedom and challenge of the game that give the player the feeling of adventure and accomplishment--something the modern Zelda games sorely lack.

[TJ Spyke]

Well, Nintendo was so convinced that the game would be hard that they included a map with the game and set up a free hotline just for this game (they were so overwhelmed though that they kep expanding the number of operators). The game is OK now, and holds up better than most of the NES games in the Ambassador's Program, but not one of my favorite Zelda games and I can easily see why most people wouldn't beat it.

[marty]

Well, Nintendo was so convinced that the game would be hard that they included a map with the game and set up a free hotline just for this game (they were so overwhelmed though that they kep expanding the number of operators). The game is OK now, and holds up better than most of the NES games in the Ambassador's Program, but not one of my favorite Zelda games and I can easily see why most people wouldn't beat it.

The game wasn't hard, it was new--no one had played an action adventure game before.  Information doesn't make the game easier, just less opaque.  Besides, hotlines and maps were common up until the mid 90's--nothing surprising about either.

[UncleBob]

I don't think a lot of people realize how huge NES Zelda became.  Cartoons on network TV, breakfast cereal, and merch up the ass.  Some people will look at OoT or other games as the pinnacle, but they weren't nearly as popular or ground-breaking as the NES games.

eh.... I think a lot of the Zelda licensing was done by an early Nintendo that didn't quite understand what they were getting into.  There was a *lot* less licensing during the SNES-GCN time frame after Nintendo got "burnt" during the NES area.  I think the Mario Bros. movie was the turning point of when Nintendo said "what the **** are we doing?" and stopped signing any licensing agreement that came their way.

During the Wii-era, they've really loosened up again.  There's all kinds of Nintendo-themed shirts, toys, candies, etc.  I wonder if we'll ever see a Nintendo movie or TV show again though...

[marty]

eh.... I think a lot of the Zelda licensing was done by an early Nintendo that didn't quite understand what they were getting into.  There was a *lot* less licensing during the SNES-GCN time frame after Nintendo got "burnt" during the NES area.  I think the Mario Bros. movie was the turning point of when Nintendo said "what the **** are we doing?" and stopped signing any licensing agreement that came their way.

During the Wii-era, they've really loosened up again.  There's all kinds of Nintendo-themed shirts, toys, candies, etc.  I wonder if we'll ever see a Nintendo movie or TV show again though...

Well to that, sir, I say Pokemon.

Nintendo whore's itself out when it has a huge hit--it's just that their 8-bit games seem to produce the megastars.

[UncleBob]

eh.... I think a lot of the Zelda licensing was done by an early Nintendo that didn't quite understand what they were getting into.  There was a *lot* less licensing during the SNES-GCN time frame after Nintendo got "burnt" during the NES area.  I think the Mario Bros. movie was the turning point of when Nintendo said "what the **** are we doing?" and stopped signing any licensing agreement that came their way.

During the Wii-era, they've really loosened up again.  There's all kinds of Nintendo-themed shirts, toys, candies, etc.  I wonder if we'll ever see a Nintendo movie or TV show again though...

Well to that, sir, I say Pokemon.

Nintendo whore's itself out when it has a huge hit--it's just that their 8-bit games seem to produce the megastars.

Eh... Pokémon is a different beast altogether.  Licensing is handled by The Pokémon Company, not Nintendo.  That's how you end up with a Pokémon app on the iPhone.

[marty]

Eh... Pokémon is a different beast altogether.  Licensing is handled by The Pokémon Company, not Nintendo.  That's how you end up with a Pokémon app on the iPhone.

Nintendo produced games that had huge cultural popularity after Zelda and Mario's reign--that's what I'm pointing out.  Pokemon had the TV show, the card game, wide release theatrical movies, toys, etc...  Aonuma isn't making Zelda popular.  Hell, the "greatest game of all time" (lol) wasn't even that popular.  Maybe the people making new (,unpopular,) Zelda games should figure out why the hell old Zelda was so popular and play the fucking game themselves!

[UncleBob]

I'm merely saying you can't use Pokémon as an example - while it's commonly considered a "Nintendo Property", it is really something else entirely.  I can't really think of an equivalent for what it is.

[Ceric]

I'm merely saying you can't use Pokémon as an example - while it's commonly considered a "Nintendo Property", it is really something else entirely.  I can't really think of an equivalent for what it is.

Who owns Pokemon?

I mean the Pokemon company is in charge of licensing.  Gamefreak developed the game.  Nintendo has done all the funding.

Sort of like a Nascar in a way.

[marty]

I'm merely saying you can't use Pokémon as an example - while it's commonly considered a "Nintendo Property", it is really something else entirely.  I can't really think of an equivalent for what it is.

Nintendo publishes the games and owns the Pokemon Company/Pokemon Ltd--The Pokemon Game became such a huge phenomenon that it became it's own entity OWNED by Nintendo.  It was the success of the game that drove the property to such heights, just like Zelda and Mario.

[TJ Spyke]

Actually, The Pokemon Company is not technically owned by Nintendo. Nintendo did create it, but it's an affiliate of Nintendo and not owned by it.

[marty]

Actually, The Pokemon Company is not technically owned by Nintendo. Nintendo did create it, but it's an affiliate of Nintendo and not owned by it.

It's an affiliate owned by Nintendo.

[UncleBob]

I'm merely saying you can't use Pokémon as an example - while it's commonly considered a "Nintendo Property", it is really something else entirely.  I can't really think of an equivalent for what it is.

Nintendo publishes the games and owns the Pokemon Company/Pokemon Ltd--The Pokemon Game became such a huge phenomenon that it became it's own entity OWNED by Nintendo.  It was the success of the game that drove the property to such heights, just like Zelda and Mario.

Publishing the games mean nothing.  Nintendo has published Final Fantasy games - it does not mean they own them.
TPC/PCL/PCI is partially owned by Nintendo (I think 2/3rds).

As for what drove the success of the property so high... I'd actually argue that it wasn't just the games.  It was the marketing push behind them - the licensing, the branding, the TV show, the card game.

I worked at BK when the first Pokémon movie came out during the height of the Pokémon craze.  We had a HUGE promotion with Pokémon toys (you may remember, these had the killer Pokéballs with them).

Well, Tuesday nights at my store were "Family Night" - where kids meals were 99 cents.  You can imagine how huge this was during the Pokémon promotion.  In fact, store management talked about suspending the 99 cent kids meals during this time - parents were bringing their kids in and everyone would get 2-3 kids meals - including the parents.

Anyway - during this time, I would work the dining room, interacting with the kids, encourage trading of toys, run contests (stuffed, talking Pikachu was the "hard to get" toy and I always had some of those to give away).  One thing I did was I always bought my own GameBoy and a couple of link cables - always encouraging everyone to bring in their own and trade actual Pokémon.  This got *very* little response.

Hell, some weeks, I'd bring in a small TV, Smash Bros and my Nintendo 64.  Rarely anyone picked Pikachu or Jigglypuff.

[UncleBob]

The Pokémon Company is owned 1/3 by Nintendo themselves and 1/3 by Creatures, Inc. (wholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo).

The other 1/3 is owned by GameFreak - who originally developed Pokémon.  GameFreak is an independent company that has worked on a handful of games for the PlayStation, the Genesis and the TurboGrafx-16.

[marty]

As interesting as this is, it really doesn't change the fact that Pokemon (a Nintendo published game made by a majority owned company) became a huge success as a game and then as an empire.

Zelda's popularity is on the wane.  The people that are responsible for the Zelda franchise didn't play the game that made Zelda popular.  I don't think this is a coincidence.