http://www.triforcet...icle-zelda2.txt
Ignore the ASCII art at the top, a friend of mine added that when I taught him how to use FTP... >_> Anyway, that just tells you my opinion on Zelda II. If you are too lazy to read it, here's what it says:
If anything, I thought it was a pretty decent game. Yes, I know. You can smack me for it. But
it's true! It was a pretty damn decent game. So the control style was a bit odd. It's not like
Legend of Kage was any different when it comes to strange control styles. I mean, come on. And Castlevania,
that is a very good game, but it has wierd controls. Does that make it any worse than a Zelda CD-i game?
And another thing. It's still a Zelda game. If it doesn't have "The Legend of" in the title,
then does that make the game any worse? Come on, people. Back when they named it, the people
recieving the game may never have even knew they were making yet another sequel with
"The Legend of" in the title. So, no, it wouldn't make it any worse. Lay off of that, guys.
The difficulty, in my opinion, did catch me pretty off guard. I was expecting it to have mindbending
puzzles and navigation oddities. Instead, you got a sidescrolling RPG. Well, not too shabby
at least. But I do miss the puzzlesolving quite a bit. So that is one thing that you can strike
against it, the fact that it is very difficult. But that doesn't make it any worse than
something as difficult as a first time gamer trying to speed run A Link to the Past.
And lastly. It's got the guts of a Zelda game. I mean, come on. You're questing to save a
princess named Zelda, from an evil incarnation, Shadow Link. Shadow Link happens to be a
Ganon incarnation to many people, by the way. You're questing for something mystical and triangular
shaped, namely a TRIFORCE shard.
My final statement: People, you need to lighten up a bit. Why isn't it a good game to you? Probably
because the difficulty through you back. Games need difficulty, not graphics, violence, and sex. That's
not what a game is about. It's about what it really is there for.
Now let this sink in. On my site, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link made it as Game of the Month for July '07. These days games are mostly based around action and nothing more. Final Fantasy is outselling Zelda because of this (which, in my opinion, Zelda tops Final Fantasy a good bit, but they're both good games).
But there's more of a point here.
They aren't challenging enough anymore!
"Oh, we wanted to appeal to a larger audience," says Reggie Fils-Aime when interviewing about the Wii. Well then actually put a challenge somewhere, there were challenging spots in Twilight Princess but there weren't nearly as many challenges as I thought there'd be. There needs to be two modes for games these days: Progressing difficulty (easy in the beginning, getting more difficult, crazy hard) and an expert-hard mode.
The reason I brought Zelda II into it is because it was one of the first good games that brought some awesome difficulty and labrynth like (thanks to Animus01 for the labrynth-like compliment) dungeons. Games are just losing there luster these days. What do you guys think?