I think the 3D Zelda's built on the reputation of the series. The reason people were so excited about Ocarina of Time was because of the first 3. People noticed the series long before the 3D games.
Ocarina of Time is a perfect start into 3D Zelda. Link's Awakening is a perfect start into 2D Zelda.
Be sure to play those two. And yeah, don't listen to anybody saying, that you should ignore the 2D Zelda games. You would be missing half of the fun then, if not more. And gameplay-wise the NDS Zeldas, which are the current titles of the series, are still 2D.
If Nintendo can go back to Mario in 2D on a console after all that time, they can do the same for Zelda, although I think people would be more excited for a new top-down Zelda, akin to A Link To The Past than they would be for another Zelda II style game.
Eh with the recent resurgence of side-scrolling games (Mega Man 9, a boy and his blob, _ rebirth, Klonoa, Muramasa, Braid, and the list goes on and on), I think a side-scrolling 2.5D Zelda would be really popular right now. Obviously the difficulty could be toned down, and I'm imagining a Link that plays similarly to SSBB's Link.
But yeah, ignoring the 2D games because we may never get another one is just silly. As Trin said, we've had 3 3D Marios, but that doesn't mean people should ignore Super Mario Bros. 3 or Super Mario World!
If Nintendo can go back to Mario in 2D on a console after all that time, they can do the same for Zelda, although I think people would be more excited for a new top-down Zelda, akin to A Link To The Past than they would be for another Zelda II style game.
Eh with the recent resurgence of side-scrolling games (Mega Man 9, a boy and his blob, _ rebirth, Klonoa, Muramasa, Braid, and the list goes on and on), I think a side-scrolling 2.5D Zelda would be really popular right now. Obviously the difficulty could be toned down, and I'm imagining a Link that plays similarly to SSBB's Link.
But yeah, ignoring the 2D games because we may never get another one is just silly. As Trin said, we've had 3 3D Marios, but that doesn't mean people should ignore Super Mario Bros. 3 or Super Mario World!
I'm sure it would be, but if someone offered me A Link To The Past 2 (in style) or Adventure of Link 2, I know which one I'd go for. Sure we had the Minish Cap, but the handheld games, even at their best, never quite hit the heights of the full console games. At least in my opinion.
It just seems weird to move from 3D Zelda back to LttP-style 2D Zelda, since there really isn't a lot of difference. I mean, a lot of things in LttP were presented like they were supposed to be in 3D anyway. There were elevated areas where you could drop down to ground level, etc.
Aside from the moving camera there's just not much difference...
@briun - When you say the very beginning, you mean the original The Legend of Zelda or The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time? 'cause according to Miyamoto's Zelda chronology, OoT occurs prior to LoZ.
lttp and ocarina almost feel as if they are the same game in 2D and 3D
Well, they are very similar. I've always thought of OoT as a 3D LttP remake. In both games, you play 3 dungeons, get the master sword, then go to an alternate world (dark/future) and complete 6 more dungeons - traveling between the two worlds to help you do so. Then of course, finish off Ganon.
Well, it all depends on your point of view, really. Still, Zelda 2 is underrated and a good followup to Zelda 1. ^^
Zelda 2 would be a masterpiece if it weren't for its insane difficulty and the unfairly small sword they give you. I had a lot of fun with it--but I never got past the second dungeon if I'm being honest
Blog: http://www.sequencebreaking.blogspot.com
3DS Friend Code: 2277-7231-5687
Now Playing: Animal Crossing: New Leaf
That's okay. I love challenge, and I'm playing with no guide whatsoever. Plus, discovering the items and techniques is the fun part. I managed to beat the third dungeon boss...only three more.
We had Mario 64, Mario Sunshine, Mario Galaxy... and now we will soon have New Super Mario Bros Wii, the first console 2D Mario game since Super Mario World on the SNES, released in 90-92, depending on where you are.
If Nintendo can go back to Mario in 2D on a console after all that time, they can do the same for Zelda, although I think people would be more excited for a new top-down Zelda, akin to A Link To The Past than they would be for another Zelda II style game.
They can, but I doubt they would. The 3D Zelda's are what really made people notice the series. I know people that used to think that Ocarina of Time was the first Zelda. Mario has always been huge with everyone, it would be smart to do it with Mario.
Well...first off, the series has been pretty big from the start. That's why they rerelease the earlier games so much(same with Mario).
Secondly, they're still making 2D Zelda games. Unless I'm the only one who considers the portable games part of the series, we've already had Oracle of Seasons/Ages, The Minish Cap, Four Swords, Phantom Hourglass, Four Swords Adventures(on the Gamecube!), and now Spirit Tracks is coming - all of which are 2D games, and all of which came out long after the series had supposedly moved to 3D.
Thirdly, just because they aren't knew doesn't mean they no longer have any relevence. The old games are classics, and are definitely a good place to start. There are enough common elements between each game in the series, even the 2D and 3D ones, that chances are something you liked from your first game will probably be in the other games in some form.
As much as I would love to leave the "TP: Good game or bad game" argument to another thread, I feel that it would be left unfinished if I didn't throw in the two cents I started throwing in with my "+1" comment at the end of page 2. So here's the other cent.
(I'm not going to hesitate with spoiling plots of anything, so don't bother reading if you're over-sensitive to that stuff)
I'll start with the strong points, and work down. The strongest point is easily the music. Thanks to Koji Kondo and whoever the heck else helped with the music, this has been consistent throughout the entire series as brilliant. Next is probably the item innovation. The spinner, double hookshot (I refuse to call it the clawshot. Stick to tradition in names, Nintendo) and dominion rod were all fantastic ideas... however, they were all drastically underused. All three items are pretty much designed to be used in dungeons, and in dungeons only. I can remember only a few uses of any of those items outside of dungeons.
I'll admit, I liked the fire dungeon. And I liked the Ganondorf fights, as well as the Zant fights, however all the other dungeons in the game were horrid, and I wasn't the biggest fan of any of the boss fights, either. Now we're onto not-so-good points, here's the negative side. The order of the dungeons is pretty ridiculous. I said earlier for Nintendo to stick to tradition in names earlier. Strictly in names. How many times have the first three dungeons been forest, fire, and then water themed, in that order? Ocarina of Time had that order, Majora's Mask had it, Wind Waker had it... Oh, and A Link to the Past had it. Also Minish Cap, and now Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass both have it. Surely five times preceding is enough? In fact, had the NES been capable of more, I'd say that the original Legend of Zelda had that pattern. Anyway, everything after the first three is even more boring than the pattern Nintendo are throwing into our faces.
The graphics are said to be realistic. Real life has more colours in its palette than grey, brown, dark green and black. Granted, the graphics are in a much more realistic style than the 3D predecessor, The Wind Waker, but in short, WW's graphics are simply better, due to having more colour, and being easier on the eyes. I seem to remember reading a comment from the developers along the lines of "We planned to improve the graphics for the Wii version, but never got round to it." I'd imagine the results were Link's, Zelda's and Ganondorf's models in Brawl. However even then, everything about the Eldin Bridge stage screams "MUD" at me, like the entire world did in Twilight Princess save for the sky, and the dungeons. Therefore pretty much the entire map.
Next up, the characters. The best comparison is Majora's Mask. I realise this is similar to me comparing the vampires in Twilight to those in Dracula, but that's the idea. In Majora's Mask, you got to know the characters, you got a feel for them. You wanted to help Kafei and Anju get married successfully, you wanted to save the Skull Kid from the curse of the Mask, you wanted to help the monkey at Deku Palace, you wanted to avenge the spirits of Darmani and Mikau. In Twilight Princess, Zelda kills herself for the sake of Midna who leaves at the end of the game, you have to fight Zelda possessed by Ganondorf, and Zant and Ganondorf kill eachother after you fought them. Talo, Malo (I take back my comment of sticking to traditions with names) and Colin are as far as I'm concerned, there for comedic effect, rather than plot advancements, which is what Midna and Zant are there for. Whenever I try to think of the name of the Zora prince, I think "Prince Komali" before "Prince Ralis". Perhaps the best characters in the game are the yeti couple, however. Their names escape me, but I remember laughing at them as I did at Tarin in Link's Awakening, which is perhaps the only good feeling I've gotten from Twilight Princess. Even Epona has more personality in the N64 games than here.
Although it only applies to one version of the game, the Wii controls are awful. Most notably, the controls for fishing. They are worse than the controls for fishing as Big in Sonic Adventure DX on Gamecube (I haven't played the original, so I wouldn't know). They aren't explained, you can't check on them, and I seem to remember the fetch quest at the beginning of the game taking me almost three hours because I didn't know this. Even on my first playthrough of it, as my first 3D Zelda, and being about 7 at the time, Ocarina of Time's fetch quest at the beginning took me about half an hour. The fantastic archery controls do not make up for this whatsoever. I'm sure the Gamecube version is significantly better than this, however due to it's much shorter supply, and how bad I consider the rest of the game, I'm not going to bother trying to get my hands on it. Oh, and I doubt the archery controls are anywhere near as good.
Now for the big rant, the sidequests. I was told before that saying +1 to the message about there not being any sidequests was wrong, due to the comment being wrong. The comment I +1'd was not wrong, merely miswritten. I believe what NotEnoughGolds meant to write was "There are no good/fun sidequests." Hunting bugs compares to hunting skulltulas. Except skulltulas are visible without using a microscope, and there's no real loss if you don't get them. In Twilight Princess, if you don't get the bugs, you don't get a bigger wallet, meaning you carry less money, meaning you can't pick up as much, meaning because Twilight Princess is dumb, you can't take money from chests if your wallet is full, meaning they're left on the map, and they are merely objects of confusion when you're looking for that last small key to open a door with. I believe I got into this situation in both the Water Palace and in Arbiter's Grounds. Another sidequest is poe catching... What. The. F***. Seriously, couldn't they come up with something new? This has already been in Ocarina of Time, and as stated, there's probably no reason to want to do it. In fact, you're effectively trying to save a selfish jerk. At least in Ocarina of Time, they didn't develop the character you were giving the poes to much further than a "collector" or "shopkeeper", because who will want to help a selfish, greedy jerk like him? I sure wouldn't.
And lastly, monotony. You're probably familiar with it, as you likely encountered it reading this. It is perhaps another reason I'm starting to dislike the Zelda series now my collection of the games has expanded from 5, to almost 15. I'm getting bored of the new entries. Why must the dungeon order be the same? Why must the core plot be the same? Why must the sidequests be the same? The bosses? The character names? Almost everything in Twilight Princess is reminiscent of Ocarina of Time. And the stuff that we expected to remain the same because it was good, they changed. Why add an extra heart piece for a full container? I believe I read "You got your second heart piece! You have 3 more to get until you have a new container!" as a typo the first time round. There are some things you should change because they get boring, and there are some things you need to change because they're simply bad. Of course, the opposite is also true, and perhaps moreso in the Zelda series. Zelda used to be a word that represented quality. Upon playing Twilight Princess, Minish Cap, and so on, I can no longer say that honestly.
You may read this as a "don't bother with TP" post. I'm sure if you don't mind playing carbon copies of games, you'd enjoy it. But I'd say stick to the older games. Even if the graphics aren't as pretty, that's not what Zelda, Nintendo, or gaming as a whole is about.
The order of the dungeons is pretty ridiculous. I said earlier for Nintendo to stick to tradition in names earlier. Strictly in names. How many times have the first three dungeons been forest, fire, and then water themed, in that order? Ocarina of Time had that order, Majora's Mask had it, Wind Waker had it... Oh, and A Link to the Past had it. Also Minish Cap, and now Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass both have it. Surely five times preceding is enough?
Again, you are doing what the other guy did - every Zelda does it, but now it's suddenly a problem in Twilight Princess. Argument doesn't stand.
The graphics are said to be realistic. Real life has more colours in its palette than grey, brown, dark green and black. Granted, the graphics are in a much more realistic style than the 3D predecessor, The Wind Waker, but in short, WW's graphics are simply better, due to having more colour, and being easier on the eyes.
I think you're right. Twilght Princess looks good, but it's too muddy in places, and overall, I think WindWaker looks better, has more charm, and is more impressive. For some reason lots of people want 'realistic' graphics in their Zelda games, whch is strange, as WindWaker and Link To The Past show quite clearly that Zelda actually works best with well done cartoony graphics.
Next up, the characters. The best comparison is Majora's Mask. I realise this is similar to me comparing the vampires in Twilight to those in Dracula, but that's the idea. In Majora's Mask, you got to know the characters, you got a feel for them. You wanted to help Kafei and Anju get married successfully, you wanted to save the Skull Kid from the curse of the Mask, you wanted to help the monkey at Deku Palace, you wanted to avenge the spirits of Darmani and Mikau.
...And you want to help Midna return to the Twilight Realm. Just saying 'every other Zelda did this and it was good, Twilight Princess did this and it was bad' isn't really going to work as an argument.
Even Epona has more personality in the N64 games than here.
Just not true, really.
Although it only applies to one version of the game, the Wii controls are awful. Most notably, the controls for fishing. They are worse than the controls for fishing as Big in Sonic Adventure DX on Gamecube (I haven't played the original, so I wouldn't know). They aren't explained, you can't check on them, and I seem to remember the fetch quest at the beginning of the game taking me almost three hours because I didn't know this. Even on my first playthrough of it, as my first 3D Zelda, and being about 7 at the time, Ocarina of Time's fetch quest at the beginning took me about half an hour.
Again, simply not true. The fishing 'controls' consist of selecting the fishing rod, which takes 2 seconds and is impossible to misunderstand, casting the rod, which is a single button press which the game displays on the screen, and then waiting for a fish to take your bobberfloat under the water and striking, which consists of moving your arm. It is a very simple process, and the fact that you, for some bizarre reason took 3 hours to complete this simple process is a reflection on you, not the game.
Sonic Adventure DX has no relevance in this argument.
Now for the big rant, the sidequests. I was told before that saying +1 to the message about there not being any sidequests was wrong, due to the comment being wrong. The comment I +1'd was not wrong, merely miswritten. I believe what NotEnoughGolds meant to write was "There are no good/fun sidequests." Hunting bugs compares to hunting skulltulas. Except skulltulas are visible without using a microscope, and there's no real loss if you don't get them.
Not to keep repeating myself, but your arguments consist of describing something in Twilight Princes which is the same as in every other Zelda, and suddenly claiming it's a problem. The sidequests are as good or fun as the sidequests in Windwaker, Ocarina, etc.
In Twilight Princess, if you don't get the bugs, you don't get a bigger wallet, meaning you carry less money, meaning you can't pick up as much, meaning because Twilight Princess is dumb, you can't take money from chests if your wallet is full, meaning they're left on the map, and they are merely objects of confusion when you're looking for that last small key to open a door with. I believe I got into this situation in both the Water Palace and in Arbiter's Grounds.
Hang on... the previous poster who didn't like Twilight Princess complained that you don't need to do any sidequests because you don't need the wallets... now you are complaining you have to do them because you need the wallet... damned if you do, damned if you don't.
You are right, in my opinion, on the 'putting things back if you haven't got space' thing... it makes it annoying when you have to re-enter temples. No idea why they made this change for the worse.
Another sidequest is poe catching... What. The. F***. Seriously, couldn't they come up with something new?
Again, like this in every Zelda, suddenly in Twilight Princess it's a problem... same argument, still not valid.
Why must the dungeon order be the same? Why must the core plot be the same? Why must the sidequests be the same? The bosses? The character names?
Well, that's Zelda, if you don't like it, don't play.
What do you do in Super Mario Bros? And Bros 3? And World? Pretty much the same thing.
And Mario 64? Sunshine? Galaxy? Pretty much the same thing. Bowser... Princess... mushrooms... jumping on things... coins... Koopas... if you don't like that, don't buy New Super Mario Bros Wii. No point in buying it, playing it, then complaining because it is what it is.
You may read this as a "don't bother with TP" post. I'm sure if you don't mind playing carbon copies of games, you'd enjoy it. But I'd say stick to the older games. Even if the graphics aren't as pretty, that's not what Zelda, Nintendo, or gaming as a whole is about.
Firstly, the older games, to use your argument, would be the same as Twilight Princess, and most people would find, say, Ocarina, to be Twilight Princess-lite, with clunky controls and bad graphics. No reason to stick to the older games if you don't like the series. If you don't like the series, play something else.
Secondly I read this as a don't play TP post... but without reasons not to play it that hold water on close inspection.
Apart from the bit about WindWaker looking very good, perhaps even better due to the style, and the slight problem with putting rupees back if you have no space in your wallet, you were simply complaining about things that have been the way they have, in one form or another since The Legend of Zelda on the NES.
Forums
Topic: Which Zelda game to start with
Posts 61 to 80 of 112
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.