by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday November 05, 2007 @03:55PM (#21245363)
"Phantom Hourglass is a first for Nintendo in a few ways. Story-wise, it's the first time a Zelda game has directly referenced elements from a previous title.
Actually, it's not the first sequel. The second Zelda game was the first sequel:
"The Adventure of Link is a direct sequel to the original The Legend of Zelda" Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
TAoL really gets more flack than it deserves... I love that game...
I think it gets less now than it used to. It used to be more of an odd one out - the side-scrolling action instead of the other games' top-down model was certainly weird. It didn't feel at all the same as the other games, and so it got a fair amount of abuse. I loved it myself - I'd played it first, and only got the others rather later, so I didn't see it as so strange - but I can understand the criticism.
That was the case while Zelda II was compared with Zelda I, LttP and Awakening. All top-down adventures clearly related to each other, leaving Zelda II out in the cold.
Then Nintendo decided to change the rules a bit. I remember feeling a certain trepidation when I heard what was being done. 3D? How'll that work? The whole thing was pretty much a complete rethink, making the difference between Zelda II and the other three seem rather less significant.
And then the game came out, and... well, there's Civilization II and Super Mario Bros. III, and maybe Half-Life, and that's all that stands comparison.
Now Zelda II isn't so much seen as an oddball, a black sheep of the family. It's a precursor to Ocarina, ahead of its time. Fighting side on? You do it in Ocarina, when you're not viewing it from behind instead. Using magic spells? Well, that's what the ocarina's for. And better yet, Ocarina explicitly endorsed the awesomeness of Zelda II: Rauru. Ruto. Saria. Mido. Nabooru. Darunia.
Now, I'm looking forward to the second (or the first exclusively) Wii Zelda. I hope to find out at last just who Kasuto was:-)
I think it gets flak because it's just a bad game. The level design is often repetitive, the fights annoying and the way you have to start from Zelda's temple every time you run out of lives is really annoying. There have been better implementations of similar gameplay. Playing AoL is like playing the original Metroid, just no fun.
After Wind Waker came out, I always considered Link's Awakening to be like a psuedo sequel to it. Wind Waker ends with you sailing the high seas and Link's Awakening begins in the middle of a storm on the high seas. But then again, I like to draw connections to things that shouldn't really connect. Like how I consider The Big Bounce to be a sequel to Shawshank Redemption (hey, it stars Morgan Freeman on a resort island, he obviously let Andy Dufresne build up the resort, then he killed him and took over -
not the first sequel (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's not the first sequel. The second Zelda game was the first sequel:
"The Adventure of Link is a direct sequel to the original The Legend of Zelda" Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:not the first sequel (Score:5, Insightful)
TAoL really gets more flack than it deserves... I love that game...
Re:not the first sequel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:not the first sequel (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it gets less now than it used to. It used to be more of an odd one out - the side-scrolling action instead of the other games' top-down model was certainly weird. It didn't feel at all the same as the other games, and so it got a fair amount of abuse. I loved it myself - I'd played it first, and only got the others rather later, so I didn't see it as so strange - but I can understand the criticism.
That was the case while Zelda II was compared with Zelda I, LttP and Awakening. All top-down adventures clearly related to each other, leaving Zelda II out in the cold.
Then Nintendo decided to change the rules a bit. I remember feeling a certain trepidation when I heard what was being done. 3D? How'll that work? The whole thing was pretty much a complete rethink, making the difference between Zelda II and the other three seem rather less significant.
And then the game came out, and... well, there's Civilization II and Super Mario Bros. III, and maybe Half-Life, and that's all that stands comparison.
Now Zelda II isn't so much seen as an oddball, a black sheep of the family. It's a precursor to Ocarina, ahead of its time. Fighting side on? You do it in Ocarina, when you're not viewing it from behind instead. Using magic spells? Well, that's what the ocarina's for. And better yet, Ocarina explicitly endorsed the awesomeness of Zelda II: Rauru. Ruto. Saria. Mido. Nabooru. Darunia.
Now, I'm looking forward to the second (or the first exclusively) Wii Zelda. I hope to find out at last just who Kasuto was :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But then again, I like to draw connections to things that shouldn't really connect. Like how I consider The Big Bounce to be a sequel to Shawshank Redemption (hey, it stars Morgan Freeman on a resort island, he obviously let Andy Dufresne build up the resort, then he killed him and took over -
Re: (Score:1)