Played Legend of Zelda(NES) for the first time this weekend

[Violent By Design]

The only other Zelda I ever put serious time in was Ocarina, and tbh I thought it fell short of the original. Though I don't really consider them to be the same series, many Zelda fans seem to intertwine the 3D ones with the 2D ones.

OOT is a pretty natural step from A Link to the Past, i'm not sure at all how you could consider it part of a separate series... Perhaps you should put some serious time into that one?

Perhaps you should! Other than theme the two are not THAT similar. The 2D and 3D ones are different type of games, different mechanics, controls etc. Certainly you can not only see but feel a difference between Skyward Sword/Twilight/Ocarina and Oracles/LOZ/LTTP and what not.

I don't really understand the natural step part. It is a natural step in that it went from 2D to 3D, as most franchise had during that era. I would not consider Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Bros to play the same either, even if they share common elements (as they should since 64 is a 3D adaption), to me they are not the same genre, same with Zelda.

It's not as if I am throwing some sly to people who group them together. They are intertwined by brand, but I do not consider them the same exact series. As I do with many franchises, I tend to group them by genre (or sub-genre to be more exact) rather than brand or narrative. And yes, a game being 2D as opposed to 3D is enough to make it a different genre in most cases even if it does share common elements, I would say.

[AppleQueso]

You the one who said you'd never put any serious time into alttp...

Super Mario 64 was pretty different from the 2D games, that I'll give you no problem. It completely changed the whole structure of the game, making it open, nonlinear and mission based as opposed to the simple 'get to the end of the stage'.

On the other hand all OOT did really was give a typical 3D camera angle, a more complex approach to combat with the lock-on system and whatnot, and a slightly stronger focus on narrative. You still explore the overworld, find secrets, go through dungeons, get new items to help you explore and find more secrets other dungeons, etc etc. OOT's young/adult link sections are pretty similar to ALTTP's light/dark world to boot. Alttp already had a stronger focus on the story than either of the NES games, so OOT having a stronger focus than that seemed pretty natural to me.

I fail to see what gameplay conventions were lost in the transition from ALTTP to OOT. I'm not going to argue which was the better game between those two or anything, I'm just saying that it's not some ultra jarring totally different experience. As far as 2D to 3D transitions go, Zelda didn't change much.

[AppleQueso]

Also, I don't know if you took my "Maybe you should spend more time with ALTTP" comment as condescension. It really, honestly, wasn't. Your post left me under the impression that you'd never really played much of the game and I'd assumed that you didn't see the things which sort of bridged the gap between the original game and OOT.

[Violent By Design]

You the one who said you'd never put any serious time into alttp...

I don't understand your statement at all. I have played one 2D and one 3D, why am I required to play LTTP for my statement to be valid (or invalid?). You're argument that I am uninformed doesn't really match up in this scenario.

My statement was really saying that 2D Zeldas should be grouped with other 2D Zelda, 3D Zeldas are better paired with other 3D Zeldas. But you seem to be making the argument smaller, making it a comparison of only LTTP and Ocarina.

Keep in mind, I have still played LTTP, and I would still say the game is closer to LOZ than Ocarina, by a very large amount. Yes, the original does not have the bells and whistles, but when it comes down to it, it has the same skeleton as LTTP.

Is there a reason why you cannot use the original LOZ in this comparison? In other words, if all these games are the same exact series, why must you only reference to LTTP? LTTP is a much more refined game than LOZ is, but I do not see how it is so different that you can only use LTTP as the bridge between it and OOT. Technically speaking, a relevant argument for LTTP-OOT should still stand for LOZ-OOT; no?

On the other hand all OOT did really was give a typical 3D camera angle,

Which is quite a big difference.

a more complex approach to combat with the lock-on system

Not only more complex, but almost totally different - which would add to my point. The combat system is the "action" portion of the game, for that to be different is a radical change.

and whatnot, and a slightly stronger focus on narrative.

Whether the narrative is stronger, weaker or if there is even a narrative is not really relevant. I am obviously not saying that Ocarina of Time is not a "Zelda" game, it is a Zelda game because Nintendo said so. I am talking about the actual game, the storyline is rather irrelevant.

You still explore the overworld, find secrets, go through dungeons, get new items to help you explore and find more secrets other dungeons, etc etc.

Aye, the things you do are not that different. Like I said they are merged through themes, but the actual gameplay of them make the emphasizes different. It is a different feel, how could it not be?

You can still jump, find power ups, find more secrets, find more levels etc etc (yet Super Mario 64 is still very different Super Mario Bros).

OOT's young/adult link sections are pretty similar to ALTTP's light/dark world to boot. Alttp already had a stronger focus on the story than either of the NES games, so OOT having a stronger focus than that seemed pretty natural to me.

Again, I am not arguing the narrative.

I fail to see what gameplay conventions were lost in the transition from ALTTP to OOT. I'm not going to argue which was the better game between those two or anything, I'm just saying that it's not some ultra jarring totally different experience. As far as 2D to 3D transitions go, Zelda didn't change much.

I was expecting this argument, but I'm not sure how I can get more specific than them having very different controls, perspective and different combat. I really can't objectively look at 2D overhead adventures like Zeldas (and other games like Zelda) and say that they are trying to achieve the same thing that games like Wind Waker/Skyward are are. I do agree that they keep the important things that make Zelda a Zelda game (ie exploring, dungeon crawling, secrets, the lore), but the method that they use is still largely different to me. I dunno, it's just when I think about it - I honestly feel like OOT plays more like Super Mario 64 than it does the 2D ones (in fact, I think they are even made on the same engine). I just believe it is masked well because it follows the Zelda mythos very well.


As I said before, 2D going to 3D makes a very big difference in nearly every umbrella genre. Streets of Rage isn't the same type of game as Dynasty Warrior(but I would say it is the same type of game as Final Fight), Tekken isn't the same as Street Fighter (but I would say it is the same type of game as Soul Calibur) - they all have many similarities, even the ideas and goals are the same, but the method that is used to achieve those is just too different.

EDIT:

Also, I don't know if you took my "Maybe you should spend more time with ALTTP" comment as condescension. It really, honestly, wasn't. Your post left me under the impression that you'd never really played much of the game and I'd assumed that you didn't see the things which sort of bridged the gap between the original game and OOT.

Well that is good to know, tbh I've taken the two post before this as rather condescending.

[AppleQueso]

I'm only comparing ALTTP directly with OOT because that's simply where the transition happened. Skyward Sword is very different from LoZ, of course, but that's largely because of all the smaller changes that have compounded over the years.

Seems like the crux of your argument is just the general mechanics. I guess I feel that what changed was merely necessitated by the fact that they chose to make the game 3D. Do you consider Zelda 2 to be separate as well? It's mechanics are very different from other Zeldas.

I don't know, I don't really disagree with the idea that 2D Zeldas are better paired with other 2D Zeldas, I just feel like the 3D Zeldas aren't so far removed from the core gameplay that they should be separated so much. Ocarina of Time is much closer to LoZ than say, Castlevania 64 is to Castlevania, or Mega Man Legends is to Mega Man, or the modern Ninja Gaiden games are to the NES ones.

I found it interesting that you brought up Tekken and Street Fighter when comparing 2D and 3D. Those games play very differently, yes, but what if you were to compare say, Rival Schools and Street Fighter?

...and yeah, I really didn't mean to come across as condescending at all. You seemed a little irritated by what I said, and it took me a moment to realize that I might've worded my ALTTP comment a little poorly.

[Opa Opa]

Am I the only one who thinks OoT is just a 3D re-imagining of ALTTP?

[AppleQueso]

Am I the only one who thinks OoT is just a 3D re-imagining of ALTTP?

That's kinda what I was saying, yeah.

[BurningDoom]

Am I the only one who thinks OoT is just a 3D re-imagining of ALTTP?

That's kinda what I was saying, yeah.

I completely disagree with that.

ALTTP is one of my all-time favorite video games. OOT I want to like, I've tried to like and get into, but I just can't. I lose interest in it and move on to another game. It doesn't grab like ALLTP. ALLTP had me absolutley engrossed the first time I played it, and I've since played through it probably a 100 times over.

[MrPopo]

Am I the only one who thinks OoT is just a 3D re-imagining of ALTTP?

That's kinda what I was saying, yeah.

It pretty much is.

[KalessinDB]

Love the original Legend of Zelda so much. Soso much. Never got into any of them as much after #1, not even half as much. To this day I'll go back and play it once a year or so -- I have *EVERYTHING* that can be picked up on the overworld map (including the bracelet, the blue ring, all the heart containers, etc) before hitting the first dungeon, from memory. I'll have something ridiculous like 12 spare keys by the time I'm done with the 2nd dungeon (I don't open any locked doors I don't need to -- how many people remember that you can enter/leave/enter the first dungeon and when you come back that initial door is unlocked magically?)

My latest trick is trying to play it through with 4 hearts, period. I'd do the initial 3, but you cannot pick up the triforce piece in level 1 without getting the heart container. And let me tell you - Wizzrobes suck so bad. Oh god, Wizzrobes. When you have 4 hearts and each Wizzrobe hits for 1... oh god. Especially when you can't hide in the doorway and snipe (which is what got me to level 6, which is where I called it quits for now) because the blue ones will just go through the doorways too.

But yeah, great game. Powerpuff's Maybe-Intro project turned me on to a couple hacks from romhacking.net that were like rediscovering an old friend -- I don't know where everything is this time! SHOCKING! I love the scene.