I just finished level 6 today and let me tell you, that was hard! Just to get to the level, you had to know the pattern, up, left, down, left! How was anybody supposed to figure that out in the eighties when you didn't have internet! What also sucked were those things with robes. They had absolutely no pattern to them at all! It was just pure luck. I especially hated when I was locked in a room with them and I had to kill them to get out. The level had two freakin' bosses!
DementedPurple wrote:
Just to get to the level, you had to know the pattern, up, left, down, left! How was anybody supposed to figure that out in the eighties when you didn't have internet!
There's an NPC in the game that tells you the pattern.
I agree ! Personally I've never got past the first 2 dungeons. The controls are just too frustrating, and the enemies AI is incredibly unpredictable. However Zelda 2 is much worse, your sword is so short than fighting is very difficult and most dungeons are dark so you can't see your enemies. The item to see them lies in a dark dungeon...
When you restart you don't even have full health. That idea was awful, basically giving you full health would have been replacing a LDA #imm by some LDA absolute. Would have it been that hard to implement ?
DementedPurple wrote:
Just to get to the level, you had to know the pattern, up, left, down, left! How was anybody supposed to figure that out in the eighties when you didn't have internet!
Someone else who goes to the same school was supposed to randomly stumble upon it and tell someone else who tells you.
Bregalad wrote:
When you restart you don't even have full health. That idea was awful, basically giving you full health would have been replacing a LDA #imm by some LDA absolute. Would have it been that hard to implement ?
There's a health-filling fairy not too far from the spawn point. I think having to walk there is a fair punishment for death.
It's
much more annoying in Metroid, where the only way to get your health back is to grind it from enemies (which can take ages, especially after you have acquired some energy tanks).
I don't really like those kinds of games. Where you endlessly run around in circles and are supposed to do some random thing to advance.
"Metroid" is even worse in this regard.
In my opinion, it must be possible to finish a game by skill alone, not by using a guide, doing random stuff or tediously bombing every single wall in the game.
Actually hidden things that you can only encounter by chance should always be optional.
That's probably one of the reasons why "Super Mario Bros." still stands the test of time while "The Legend of Zelda" looks outdated.
I don't know whether "A Link to the Past" has those impossible-to-solve riddles as well, but still, the gap between "Zelda 1" and "Zelda 3" is much, much wider than the one between "Super Mario Bros." and "Super Mario World".
Zelda also came with a manual, and a Maps and Strategies booklet.
I also can't stand this kind of repetitive gameplay, where you endlessly walk around the same places blindly looking for a way to advance. Another thing I hate to death are repetitive battles, specially if they're needed to level up, so I find most RPGs unplayable.
Dwedit wrote:
Zelda also came with a manual, and a Maps and Strategies booklet.
Booooring!!!
thefox wrote:
There's a health-filling fairy not too far from the spawn point. I think having to walk there is a fair punishment for death.
It's fine when you die on the overworld, but when you die in a dungeon you're screwed. I don't mind restarting the dungeon, but I want to restart with full health.
[/quote]
Quote:
In my opinion, it must be possible to finish a game by skill alone, not by using a guide, doing random stuff or tediously bombing every single wall in the game.
Actually hidden things that you can only encounter by chance should always be optional.
I fully agree. However you should know about the context of the 80s, there was much fewer games out there and they were quite expensive so people didn't have so much other things to play if they didn't like a game.
Quote:
Another thing I hate to death are repetitive battles, specially if they're needed to level up, so I find most RPGs unplayable.
Most NES-era RPGs yes and I fully agree. This was, for the most part, changed in the SNES era though.
I played Zelda extensively in the 80s. And there was a power up, that I didn't know existed until 15 years later, when I looked the map up on the internet.
I believe it was the 'power bracelet'. I guess you can beat the game without it, because I did.
I also spent ages bombing random walls, hoping to find a secret.
tokumaru wrote:
I also can't stand this kind of repetitive gameplay, where you endlessly walk around the same places blindly looking for a way to advance. Another thing I hate to death are repetitive battles, specially if they're needed to level up, so I find most RPGs unplayable.
Then my new game might be for you. Gameplay similar to "Zelda", with a relatively open world, also with screen-by-screen scrolling.
But without those kinds of riddles.
If you don't know where to go next, just make sure you enter every screen you haven't seen yet, and you will find the way.
Without experience points and grinding.
And, as a bonus, with an actual advancing in-game storyline.
Your next goals are dictated by the storyline, like in "Final Fantasy Adventure".
One thing that sucked for me was when I was finally at the final boss, my cat came wanting me to pet him. I was busy fighting the boss so I ignored him. After a couple of minutes, my cat was fed up so jumped up onto the NES, which made the cartridge pop up which lead to me losing my save file.
And that annoying as crap beeping! If you're low on health, it won't let you forget. It will beep non-stop until you get some more hearts.
DementedPurple wrote:
One thing that sucked for me was when I was finally at the final boss, my cat came wanting me to pet him. I was busy fighting the boss so I ignored him.
Yeah, who wants to pet a pussy when you can pound Ganon?
tokumaru wrote:
I also can't stand this kind of repetitive gameplay, where you endlessly walk around the same places blindly looking for a way to advance. Another thing I hate to death are repetitive battles, specially if they're needed to level up, so I find most RPGs unplayable.
Dwedit wrote:
Zelda also came with a manual, and a Maps and Strategies booklet.
Booooring!!!
A manual that tells you about the controls etc. is fine. But a manual that includes half of a strategy guide, telling you about the game's secrets, that's pretty questionable.
The manual only tells you how to get to the first few dungeons so that newbies get started quickly with the game. These dungeons are easy to find anyway. It doesn't tell you any of the frustrating stuff, you learned these things by trying a lot and by talking to other kids on the schoolyard like Tepples said. Also there where gaming magazines that had tips corners.
I recently did a 100%-completion-and-no-Game-Overs-run of the Japanese version of Zelda 1 (FDS version, both quests), Zelda 2 and Zelda 3 to warm up for Breath of Wild. Now I'm doing Link's Awakening (Japanese monochrome version), I've never beaten it with no Game Overs before (nor had I beated Zelda 1 with no Game Overs before this).
The Wizrobes and the Tartnacks (AKA Darknut) are probably the most dangerous enemies in Zelda 1. But they aren't as bad when you learn their patterns. Never attack a blue Tartnack from the back or a blue Wizrobe from the front. Attack them both from the side.
Bregalad wrote:
Zelda 2 is much worse, your sword is so short than fighting is very difficult and most dungeons are dark so you can't see your enemies. The item to see them lies in a dark dungeon...
I think Zelda 2 has among the best fights in any Zelda game, especially against Ironnacks. It's a bit short though.
Dungeons (temples) are never dark, but caves are. You get the candle in the first dungeon though and you only need to pass one single cave in total darkness to reach this dungeon (the Parapa Temple). Zelda 2 is probably harder than Zelda 1 action-wise but not puzzle-wise. I've played much more Zelda 2 as a kid though so I have more problems with Zelda 1. Also I think the FDS version of Zelda 2 is slightly harder than the NES version. You seem to take more damage from enemies, on the other hand there are no enemies that makes you forget some experience points in the FDS version.
Speaking as a Z2 speedrunner, Ironknuckles are a cinch. Jump and do a high slash while descending; they'll absolutely never block it. Repeat until dead and you won't get hit, because they die before they'll throw a slash, unless you haven't been leveling Attack properly. There's a different trick to not be blocked by Geru, somewhat harder and only really necessary in Any%.
Now, fighting Red Dairas in the dark, or dealing with Bots, those are hard. (Yes, the "second-weakest" enemy is a major problem, because it acts based on the PRNG, rather than on your actions.)
Quote:
Then my new game might be for you. Gameplay similar to "Zelda", with a relatively open world, also with screen-by-screen scrolling.
But without those kinds of riddles.
Like the game I've been developing since 2005 (if it ever gets released). It's a mix between arcade-games and Zelda. There's multiple path available but within traditional linear stage levels.
Quote:
Without experience points and grinding.
Zelda (edit : I'm talking about the original "Legend of Zelda" here) doesn't have those either. The only "RPG" element is the increase of the lifebar and the fact you can get better weapons.
…Zelda 2 obviously excepted.
Zelda 2 is a real RPG with an experience point system, although it doesn't require much grinding. If you take all point bags with good timing (so they aren't wasted), fight most enemies and don't save and quit with the wrong timing (even more important in the FDS version that requires you to level all stats evenly) you will be level 8 in all stats before you even reach the sixth temple.
It sounds like Zelda BOW will have some kind of powering up system besides heart pieces and better items/weapons.
Myask wrote:
Speaking as a Z2 speedrunner, Ironknuckles are a cinch. Jump and do a high slash while descending; they'll absolutely never block it. Repeat until dead and you won't get hit, because they die before they'll throw a slash, unless you haven't been leveling Attack properly. There's a different trick to not be blocked by Geru, somewhat harder and only really necessary in Any%.
I use this trick against the geru as well. It might not be the best way to fight them, but they are seldom a big problem. The blue Fokka bird warriors in the final temple however...
tepples wrote:
DementedPurple wrote:
Just to get to the level, you had to know the pattern, up, left, down, left! How was anybody supposed to figure that out in the eighties when you didn't have internet!
Someone else who goes to the same school was supposed to randomly stumble upon it and tell someone else who tells you.
This is quite true. Was true for me back in the '80s.
DRW wrote:
I don't really like those kinds of games. Where you endlessly run around in circles and are supposed to do some random thing to advance.
"Metroid" is even worse in this regard.
In my opinion, it must be possible to finish a game by skill alone, not by using a guide, doing random stuff or tediously bombing every single wall in the game.
Actually hidden things that you can only encounter by chance should always be optional.
That's probably one of the reasons why "Super Mario Bros." still stands the test of time while "The Legend of Zelda" looks outdated
Congratulations, you win the "Completely misses the point of the game award"!!!
Super Mario Bros. is an action game, whereas Zelda was always called an adventure (or action-RPG) game. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. You are expected to explore. No time limit in-game, after all.
Zelda was designed to make you learn and memorize. The element of luck or chance was not strictly necessary for improvement. Observational skill definitely was.
Since Zelda BOTW came out on the Switch, and it allows people to ignore the guidance and handholding in the game, many people have started commenting that Zelda on the SNES started the whole handholding thing, to the detriment of the series.
So don't compare Zelda to Mario. I wouldn't want to play a Zelda game without a brains prerequisite. (What will it be called... "Zelda RUN"?)
Bregalad wrote:
Like the game I've been developing since 2005 (if it ever gets released). It's a mix between arcade-games and Zelda. There's multiple path available but within traditional linear stage levels.
On the other hand, my game is not level-based. It will have a connected world of 16 x 16 screens and a bunch of standalone dungeons.
Places that you aren't supposed to go yet are blocked by obstacles or characters.
Or they are available, but aren't triggered.
For example, if you are supposed to enter a dungeon where you shall kill some opponents who try to break a wall to get an item and you enter the dungeon before the time is due, the opponents will simply not be there yet.
Bregalad wrote:
Quote:
Without experience points and grinding.
Zelda doesn't have those either.
Right. That was more directed towards tokumaru's statement about RPGs.
How much of your game is already visible?
And does it have an in-game plot?
ccovell wrote:
Congratulations, you win the "Completely misses the point of the game award"!!!
Super Mario Bros. is an action game, whereas Zelda was always called an adventure (or action-RPG) game. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. You are expected to explore. No time limit in-game, after all.
Zelda was designed to make you learn and memorize. The element of luck or chance was not strictly necessary for improvement. Observational skill definitely was.
I know that the games are different. But still, "Zelda"'s mechanics haven't aged very well.
Exploration is good and well. But in my opinion, it is implemented in a very old-fashioned way.
If exploration requires you to burn every single tree in the game or to bomb every single wall without any indication whether it will reveal something, it's just a tedious task.
Miyamoto said the game was based on his childhood memories of exploration. But I bet he didn't inspect every single tree in a forest or tried to move every single rock that he encountered to check whether something is underneath it.
Also, it has nothing to do with observation and learning. If there's no indication whatsoever what you have to do, it is only blind luck.
And about the secrets that are revealed to you by the old men and women in the game: They're fine of course, but for those it doesn't require people on the schoolyard exchanging information or a guide, so they're outside the "not holding hands" intention anyway.
Myask wrote:
…Zelda 2 obviously excepted.
Quote:
Zelda 2 is a real RPG with an experience point system
Yeah sorry I replied to the posts on the 1st page without seeing a 2nd page was there so I was talking about Zelda 1. I modified my post to reveal this. I'm pretty sure Link to the Past doesn't have any experience build either, and more recent Zelda games I didd't paly so I can't tell.
Quote:
uper Mario Bros. is an action game, whereas Zelda was always called an adventure (or action-RPG) game. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. You are expected to explore. [...] The element of luck or chance was not strictly necessary for improvement. Observational skill definitely was.
But Super Mario Bros. Also require memorisation in some of the castles, if you don't go to the correct floor the level will loop until you do, somtimes you can even be trapped if I remember well.
Also, is it me, or Nintendo's games use their own system much worse than 3rd party games ? Neither Zelda games uses sprite outlines at all, and the graphics are quite poor even for NES standards. The ways temples looks in Zelda 2 they seem to use a great total of 16 background tiles for the dungeon when the system allows for 256, also they use exclusively grey for everything but lava. The music and sound effect of Zelda uses the duty cycle of 50%. Also, for the NES version
they simply copied the DMC sample from Castlevania when the player gets a hit. Stealing Konami's work like that, they should be ashmed.
Quote:
How much of your game is already visible?
And does it have an in-game plot?
Pretty much the entiere game is visible but is "empty" as most of the enemies aren't implemented yet. Only the 1st stage is full of enemies, stage 2 has only part of them done and other has no enemies, only glitchy bosses that doensn't work and make the game crash. Only the area close to the last boss is not yet designed - that is because I'll see in which of the CHR-ROM bank there's space left for the final boss so the design will vary depending on that. There's basically no in-game plot, and there probably won't be. I was almost going to include mini dialogue before and/or after boss fights at the end of each level, but I gave up on that idea since 1) ROM size is limited and 2) I didn't know what most boss would say and for non-humanoid bosses it would have been weird to see them talking.
By the way my gmae *is* going to have the RPG elements Tokumaru was talking about, but I'll try to make grinding un-necessary. It'll be up to the player whether they want to spend time grinding and have an easy time beating the bosses, or rather making progress fast and have harder action. The details will have to be fixed in the testing phase though (if I ever go there !).
ccovell wrote:
tepples wrote:
DementedPurple wrote:
Just to get to the level, you had to know the pattern, up, left, down, left! How was anybody supposed to figure that out in the eighties when you didn't have internet!
Someone else who goes to the same school was supposed to randomly stumble upon it and tell someone else who tells you.
This is quite true. Was true for me back in the '80s.
Yes the schoolyard and gaming magazines was our internet back then.
ccovell wrote:
Since Zelda BOTW came out on the Switch, and it allows people to ignore the guidance and handholding in the game, many people have started commenting that Zelda on the SNES started the whole handholding thing, to the detriment of the series.
No way, the "handholding" or linearity of the series has always been there (a 100% unlinear game like this doesn't sound very fun to me), it just evolved more and more (which made the games better IMHO). In the first two Zelda games, this is done by requiring items to limit the number of possible dungeon orders you can do them in (not counting bug exploits or finishing a dungeon half-way just to grab a dungeon item). The part about finding the dungeons are just puzzles.
In Zelda 3 there are certain scenario phases you need to pass which limits what dungeons you can do, and at first you have to do dungeons in order. But once you have done the first dungeon in the dark world, only items limits what order you can do the dungeons in, just like the first two games. I guess the handholder navi is Sahasrala (and Zelda at times), as he tells you what to do to progress in the game.
The rest of the Zelda games follow this standard which is, I guess, why people blame this game for the increased linearity. I think that these forced phases have just become longer and longer and a bigger part of the game, which makes the games more linear. It was a natural evolution, but it has started to get a bit too much so it doesn't work as good anymore, so Zelda needed to evolve further.
In other words Zelda for Snes had an important evolution which made the games more interesting, but now it has reached a point where it has to evolve further IMHO. I haven't played Breath of the Wild yet though.
Bregalad wrote:
Also, is it me, or Nintendo's games use their own system much worse than 3rd party games ? Neither Zelda games uses sprite outlines at all, and the graphics are quite poor even for NES standards. The ways temples looks in Zelda 2 they seem to use a great total of 16 background tiles for the dungeon when the system allows for 256, also they use exclusively grey for everything but lava. The music and sound effect of Zelda uses the duty cycle of 50%. Also, for the NES version they simply copied the DMC sample from Castlevania when the player gets a hit. Stealing Konami's work like that, they should be ashmed.
Generally not, but there are some third-party makers that are very good with Nintendo's hardware. The first Zelda was a very early game so it's forgiveable but the second Zelda sounds and looks very good to me. The NES version got some good improvements in both departments though (like uniquely colored temples and a better battle tune), so I guess these were due to time constraints.
Regarding stealing the DMC sample I guess they used the same sample bank? The FDS version of Zelda 1 and 2 uses an FDS sound for these sound effects.
DRW wrote:
But a manual that includes half of a strategy guide, telling you about the game's secrets, that's pretty questionable.
Then the manual included with the U.S. release of
EarthBound for Super NES must have been questionable as a
MOTHER-f███er.
Man, don't get me started on Zelda 2, I was never able to get past the first level! I still haven't to this day. With those emenys on the overworld map, it makes just getting from one place to another extremely difficult.
Quote:
The NES version [of Zelda II] got some good improvements in both departments though (like uniquely colored temples and a better battle tune), so I guess these were due to time constraints.
It's open to debate which battle theme is better, but I think the increased vibrato depth on NES version sounds really terrible - especially
considering it's there on the whole soundtrack. It sounds absolutely awfull, at least on the FDS version they restrict themselve to only use 50% square wave and have the same vibrato always but at least that vibrato is softer and sounds much better.
Quote:
Man, don't get me started on Zelda 2, I was never able to get past the first level! I still haven't to this day. With those emenys on the overworld map, it makes just getting from one place to another extremely difficult.
Neither did I. All the place I visited are the 2 villages who are accessible, the 1st temple (never beat the boss there) and a few "dark" caves.
Oh you really have to give it more time if you give up that early. The controls are great and randomness are low, only Bot (blue slimes) are hard to predict as Myask said, so the game feels very fair for those reasons, and is nice for 1CC or I guess speedruns.
Effects aside, the addictive melody is what I really like in the NES battle theme. The FDS battle theme is just a boring variant of the boss themes with a boring melody IMHO.
Unlike Zelda 1, the NES version of Zelda 2 with all of its improvements, a few hiccups aside, is arguably better than the FDS version, and the translation is also generally good. For Zelda 1 they really messed it up by mixing up the hints and making a few new hints that doesn't make any sense (southmost peninsula?). The strings that was correctly translated are good though.
DementedPurple wrote:
With those emenys on the overworld map, it makes just getting from one place to another extremely difficult.
The game would be quite boring without enemies in the overworld. But this is what I like about Zelda 2. In many action RPGs (including most Zelda games) enemies are slow and dumb as rocks, so you can choose to do battle with them however you want. It's like an RPG with always a 99% escape chance. Zelda 2 however make this much harder, and often you have to at least to engage some enemies before you can make a safe escape. The game is quite kind by giving you safe travel roads that enemies stay away from though.
If you still think the earlier enemies are difficult to fight, you just need to spend some more time with the game to get used to the controls I think. No one can play a game like this without practice.
Playing Twilight Princess some time ago, where i felt i got told what to do at every turn that was tied to the progression of the game, it felt like a release going back to The Legend of Zelda. It may be a rough gem and all, but at least it doesn't describe to me how i should play the game like i'd be unable to figure things out by myself.
Maybe it's the nostalgia talking, but I thought the original Zelda was a great game. It did an excellent job of nudging you in the right direction without grabbing you by the by the hair and yelling in your face like the newer games do (I'm looking at you Fi) - it's all about scratching that completionist itch. Screenful of enemies? Beat them all and see what you find. Too tough? You're going the wrong way. Suspicious empty space on the dungeon map? Bomb time! Personally I think it's aged brilliantly, and SMB is an old fossil, but I'm probably alone in that viewpoint.
Breath of the Wild also lets you go where you like and get pounded if you want. You get all the lock-and-key items (that I know of) in the tutorial, and there's no companion constantly nagging you to go this way or that. Instead the enemies in areas you're not supposed to be in yet beat you six ways to Sunday and you have an RPG-style quest log that you can look at or ignore at your convenience. I think it works pretty well.
I see, in Ocarina the Zelda 3 way still worked great, you had to do the first few dungeons in order, and the later dungeons had a suggested order by Navi, that could partly be broken if you really wanted to. And then there where the mandatory side-quest dungeons (Gerudo Fortress, Ice Cave etc.) that could be done at about any time without consequences, as long as they are done before whatever you get from them are needed. I think this, and all the side-quests, made it have a good balance of linearity, and Navi only acted as a reminder of what's happening in the main story rather than a flying guide book.
Mayora has a pretty set (and short) main-quest, but it has so many side-quests that must be figured out by the player, and that can be done at almost any time without consequences, that it never feels like you are guided through the game.
Maybe the annoying handholding started in Wind Waker or Twilight Princess? I just didn't enjoy these games as much as earlier games, Skyward Sword was a better game IMO (and had the best graphics), but it also has a lot of handholding fetch-quests as part of the main-quest.
Wind Waker was very unlinear near the end, and maybe had the least amount of handholding of these later games.
Midna was the worst fairy companion, only complaining and she didn't even do her job as a fairy and tell the names and weak points of the enemies when asked. Fi was much better, but her robotic personality was a bit boring and she gave way too much guidance. Navi is easily the best fairy IMO and she set the standard of fairy companions.
Oh boy, and don't get me started on Castlevania. It's so hard that I can't even get past level 2. However, I will give it one point because unlike Zelda, the emenys actually have patterns. One thing that always bugged me though is that on the cartridge art, it shows Simon with a sword, even though in the actual game, he never uses a sword! One of the reasons I find this game rather difficult is because the game revolves a bit too much around the enemy patterns. You have to know exactly where the medusa heads will fly and when, or else you're dead. Another thing that annoyed me is that you can't control which direction you jump. Once you've jumped that direction, you can't turn around. I've always hated that the game pushes you back whenever you get hit. It's a major pain especially when you're trying to jump on small platforms with enemies on them. Especially in level two when you're trying to jump on two block platforms with flying medusa heads coming your direction, when you get hit they send you back and you fall to your death. There's this one guy from Nintendo Power who managed to beat the game without using any continues. We should be worshipping this guy!
Castlevania is one of the greatest games on the NES. You're seriously overrating its difficulty. I've completed the game without even dying many times, and I'd say there are many way harder games on the NES. It's really just a matter of knowing the stages and the enemies, it's a very static and predictable game despite some randomness in the birds, etc. It takes thorough training, but not a horrible lot.
A lot of the things you address as frustation (and you're not the only one, to be honest) are elements that make the game good. Knock ideas of Mario control out of your head - this is a completely different approach to platform gaming, and any jump you make puts you at a risk because you lose control, so you always need to plan ahead. It's a slow and methodic game. Almost a puzzle game.
As for your current source of frustration, the Medusa Heads, they are actually extremely predictable. You don't need to know when and where they appear, because they always just spawn at a steady rate.
What you need to know however, is that their pattern is always such that if you stand completely still (from before they spawn) they will never hit you. Likewise if you keep moving forward without stopping or jumping, they will never hit you. The first time you see them, the game gives you a nice plain hallway with no risks around, so you can learn this.
It's pretty ingenious in fact. Because that means Medusa Heads are never a threat by themselves, but when combined with pits or other enemies that means you have to alter your own approach and keep that in mind when facing them. This is especially important in an area like last part of Stage 3, where you will be forced to stop to fight bone pillars. If you time your movement so that you stop BEFORE a Medusa Head shows up, you don't have to worry about it.
Another thing you should keep in mind, especially for your first completion of the game, is keeping Holy Water around. It will help you immensely at the bosses, as it stunlocks them. Especially Frankenstein's Monster is extremely difficult without it, and Death is almost impossible. In general, don't be stingy with your subweapons - you lose your ammunition at the end of each stage anyway, so fire away. Whenever you've hit 10 or so enemies or candles with the same weapon, the next one will drop a "II" or "III" item, allowing you to rapidfire, which is, again, extremely helpful against bosses.
DementedPurple wrote:
Oh boy, and don't get me started on Castlevania. It's so hard that I can't even get past level 2.
Level 2 is dead easy. The corridor before Death however, is HELL. I think pretty much everyone agrees with that - this corridor is impossible without savestates and even with them it's extremely though. Death himself is another nightmare, if you don't have holy water it's impossible, but holy water is only available very early in Death's stage so you have to keep it in your inventory without dying nor getting another subweapon accidentally.
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I honestly never understood why people consider that corridor such a big problem. If you have experience with both Medusa Heads and Axe Armors (which you should have at this point, and then some), everything is extremely predictable and manageable. But I'm guessing a lot of people just don't get the Medusa Head patterns? (read my post above) Don't try to fight them, just dodge them!
I think most other parts of this stage is harder, and if you have the holy water the axe armors are completely trivialized. It's more fun to not use it, but you're gonna need to have it at this point anyway for Death. He is absurdly difficult without holy water.
I consider all of the final stage, especially the bridge in the beginning and the last room before the final staircase, way harder than "death's corridor". I'd also say the final section of stage 3 is harder, especially if you're playing the "Vs" version.
Quote:
I consider all of the final stage, [...] and the last room before the final staircase, way harder than "death's corridor"
Perhaps, but most people never got past the Death's corridor without using save states anyway.
Quote:
especially the bridge in the beginning
You can just dodge the big bats (using the clock helps in doing so), no need to fighting them.
Quote:
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I honestly never understood why people consider that corridor such a big problem. If you have experience with both Medusa Heads and Axe Armors (which you should have at this point, and then some), everything is extremely predictable and manageable. But I'm guessing a lot of people just don't get the Medusa Head patterns? (read my post above) Don't try to fight them, just dodge them!
The problem is that you have to run against the armours and the medusa heads simultaneously. Either one or the other would not be a problem. But here, you have to dodge the axes which makes you run into medusa heads, or dodge medusa heads which makes you run into an axe. There's no way around that. Also, you can only take a great total of 3 hits before dying which is ridiculously low.
Quote:
and if you have the holy water the axe armors are completely trivialized.
But you're extremely unlikely to have holy water here, as it is only available at the very begining of Death's stage. Having holy water here means you shouldn't die in the middle of Death's stage, so you should take 3 hits at maximum, period. This is hard.
It's been a while since I've played the game, but I'm pretty sure there's a holy water after the checkpoint. Otherwise I would never have been able to beat the game consistently. I have never beaten death without holy water, period.
On the other hand, stage 4 has been a blocker for me on several occasions, as you can never get the holy water back on
that stage if you lose it after the checkpoint. That spot is probably my number 1 reason for failing a game of Castlevania.
Bregalad wrote:
Also, you can only take a great total of 3 hits before dying which is ridiculously low.
Being able to take three hits actually means the game is really lenient on you failing there. You can affording failing twice and still make it through. Keep in mind that it's a really short section, and you get healing meat right before it. You should try the Vs version.
The hallway before Death just has a bad reputation due to AVGN who has a long history of spreading this kind of misinformation that spreads to people as "second hand opinions". I never heard anyone complain about the dam in TMNT until he did.
I'm not saying it's not difficult, it's just really nothing special for this game.
Maybe the corridor before death got more notoriety when AVGN made an illustration of it (which is a bit exaggerated). It is hard, but it's also just a matter of timing. For me, defeating dracula is the hardest part, and it should be.
EDIT: oops, didn't read the last paragraph above. +1, then.
In CV3, time running out used to be my worst enemy because i play it overly carefully. I especially remember losing while waiting for the orb to appear after a boss battle
Sumez wrote:
It's been a while since I've played the game, but I'm pretty sure there's a holy water after the checkpoint.
You're misremembering then. The only holy water available in Death state is near the beginning of the stage.
And I already though the Death corridor to be hell before viewing AVGN videos.
Quote:
Keep in mind that it's a really short section, and you get healing meat right before it.
Sure it helps a lot but it doesn't even restore to full health.
Quote:
On the other hand, stage 4 has been a blocker for me on several occasions, as you can never get the holy water back on that stage if you lose it after the checkpoint. That spot is probably my number 1 reason for failing a game of Castlevania.
Indeed, the Frankenstein-monster corridor is hard. It's still doable without holy water, but it requires luck, especially the boss fight itself. It's also the 1st part of the game where you can only take 3 hits before dying, because you get 4 damage per hit. My strategy is to usually try to kill him before he kills me.
The trick is being able to anticipate Igor's pattern. It's a difficult fight, but it's 100% deterministic, and doesn't require any luck.
However, due to the holy water exploit I'm sure most of us never had a lot of practical experience with it.
Sumez wrote:
Castlevania is one of the greatest games on the NES. You're seriously overrating its difficulty. I've completed the game without even dying many times, and I'd say there are many way harder games on the NES. It's really just a matter of knowing the stages and the enemies, it's a very static and predictable game despite some randomness in the birds, etc. It takes thorough training, but not a horrible lot.
Oh man, I've got to disagree with you. It
ISa great game, but it's also really hard. Not impossible, (and yes there are harder games) but it is on the short list of great games that are crazy hard (Castlevania, Battletoads, Snake Rattle n Roll, etc). (There are plenty of other really hard games, but many of them are hard and terrible. Like Ghosts and Goblins, for example)
But like others said, that hallway before death wasn't so bad. Death himself, and moreso the final battle with Dracula were much harder. (I remember as a kid leaving my NES turned on for days at the final level of Castlevania, pausing to eat, go to school, etc, just trying over and over again to defeat Dracula)
Back to the original subject: I always thought the random-bomb-everything aspect of the original zelda was really interesting in the social setting of the time. We'd sit around at school recess, pull out a map of the game, and ask everyone what things they discovered, and mark them on our shared map. There was an interesting shared exploration feeling to it, which increased the mystery and feeling of adventure. You wouldn't be able to re-create that today, with spoilers and guides being all over the internet.
I'm never said Castlevania is an easy game, it's far from it, but "crazy hard" is an overstatement, too. I'm not trying to patronize anyone for finding the game difficult, but rather I want to encourage the idea that anyone can overcome these games if they set their mind to it! "Nintendo hard" is a term that's been polluting the retro game community for years now, making people afraid to take up fun challenges.
It literally took me less than a day of practice to 1CC Castlevania for the NES. It was at most a couple of days later I made my first 1 life clear without even aiming for it.
And it's not like I'm some sort of video game prodigy, in fact I was never particularly good at video games, but CV is one of those games anyone can learn if they just sit down and practice. Also, one thing people need to do is being open to picking up strategies by watching videos, or simply analyzing the game and what they should do differently instead of continuing to run their head against the wall.
Beating Dracula or especially Death without holy water is very difficult, but using the holy water is an option you have, so make use of it. Realizing how the double and triple shot powerups worked was a huge game changer for me, that made the game much more manageable.
OP's statement about worshipping a guy for being able to beat the game without continues is absurdly hyperbolic. If you want to worship someone for their Castlevania skills, worship Funkdoc, he's a genuine god at the entire series, and mad enough to speedrun Holy Diver of all things. Now THERE'S a crazy hard game.
Sumez wrote:
Also, one thing people need to do is being open to picking up strategies by watching videos
This option isn't available to everyone for three reasons.
- First, reputation of relative difficulty of games for a particular platform began to build during the original commercial era of pre-Wii consoles, which was before the era of widespread broadband Internet access and video hosting services.
- Second, many people can't watch a lot of videos without exceeding a fairly strict monthly Internet data transfer quota imposed by the ISP. Some people live outside the service area of wired broadband and therefore must rely on satellite with its cap, or they can't afford both wired and mobile broadband and have consider mobile broadband more important than higher-volume wired broadband.
- Third, even nowadays for people who subscribe to wired broadband, Castlevania is published by Konami, one of the more litigious video game publishers (source). If Konami wanted, every video of Castlevania could be taken down tomorrow.
Quote:
OP's statement about worshipping a guy for being able to beat the game without continues is absurdly hyperbolic
I was only joking.
I'm confident that pretty much any game can be beaten if you practice enough. I see what the point was when you mentioned that I could just find strategy videos on YouTube, but keep in mind that this game was released in 1987, when the most advanced computer was the 128k Mac. Try watching YouTube an that monochrome CRT with dial-up internet. But I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they had strategy books and VHS tapes, so you could use those.
tepples wrote:
First, reputation of relative difficulty of games for a particular platform began to build during the original commercial era of pre-Wii consoles, which was before the era of widespread broadband Internet access and video hosting services.
Absolutely. Much of the difficulty of these games came from figuring it out alone, or with just a few of your friends. Things are a lot easier now that you can look up optimal techniques.
Quote:
Second, many people can't watch a lot of videos without exceeding a fairly strict monthly Internet data transfer quota imposed by the ISP. Some people live outside the service area of wired broadband and therefore must rely on satellite with its cap, or they can't afford both wired and mobile broadband and have consider mobile broadband more important than higher-volume wired broadband.
Third, even nowadays for people who subscribe to wired broadband,
Castlevania is published by Konami, one of the more litigious video game publishers (
source). If Konami wanted, every video of
Castlevania could be taken down tomorrow. [/list]
Now you're just being pedantic and ridiculous. We can make up any number of non-relevant reasons that a person might not be able to follow Sumez's advice of learning from videos, but it's not useful to the conversation.
tepples wrote:
This option isn't available to everyone for three reasons.
(...snip...)
All of that is purely theoretical. We're living in 2017 and have access to all kinds of information. It doesn't matter to me if there's some hypethetical person in some backwater area with no internet connection and no entertainment aside from his NES and Castlevania - I'm talking about what tools most of us readily have available. Another "tool" that's less available today, but moreso back then, is visiting your nerdy friends who also have the game, talking about how they approach the game and learn new tactics for getting through challenging sections. Today we don't need friends because we have YouTube, but that's just one luxury
All I'm saying is that there are a lot of ways you can learn to improve your game, whether it's one or another, and if you are interested in playing challenging video games, you should embrace them, instead of just running your head against the wall trying the same thing over and over, AVGN-style.
Hell, if you're into emulators and stuff, I wouldn't frown upon you for using savestates to practice difficult sections. There is no cheating in learning a game. The only thing that matters is that bad-ass single section no-miss run you put out afterwards!
At the end of the day what I'm trying to say is: Castlevania rocks
gauauu wrote:
Now you're just being pedantic and ridiculous. We can make up any number of non-relevant reasons that a person might not be able to follow Sumez's advice of learning from videos, but it's not useful to the conversation.
Sumez wrote:
All of that is purely theoretical. We're living in 2017 and have access to all kinds of information. It doesn't matter to me if there's some hypethetical person in some backwater area with no internet connection and no entertainment aside from his NES and Castlevania - I'm talking about what tools most of us readily have available.
Hello from Down Under, where we pay $10/GB for the luxury of an internet connection that's slow as treacle and reliable as the weather, and the telcos are
discontinuing fixed-line services to rural areas entirely to save a few bucks so they can give fiber to the big cities at no extra cost. And before anyone asks, no I do not live in the middle of nowhere - I'm 1 km from the biggest highway in the country, and the internet backbone runs
right next to it.
So it is not pedantic, it is not hypothetical, and it most certainly is relevant to the conversation, even if I have kept my mouth shut so far. I play old games precisely because I don't have the bandwidth for the download-only, DRM-phone-home-requiring crap that makes up the entire modern software industry. If I could afford to move out of this shithole, I would, so I'll thank tepples for bringing the matter up to elitist oafs like you two whenever he has the opportunity.
Sumez wrote:
At the end of the day what I'm trying to say is: Castlevania rocks
Now
this I can agree with.
I'm being an elitist oaf for assuming that someone with an internet connection has access to YouTube? I honestly don't think that's a big assumption to make, but I'm genuinely sorry if it offended you.
As I already pointed out though, picking at this particular thing is completely missing my point, which was that you should use whatever tools are available to you to improve your game instead of flailing aimlessly. Another tool could be discussing strategies on internet forums, which you appear to have access to.
Well in Scandinavia even hermits living on desolate mountains probably have fiber, but in most of the world that simply isn't the case so let's not be ignorant when on the internet.
DementedPurple wrote:
One thing that always bugged me though is that on the cartridge art, it shows Simon with a sword, even though in the actual game, he never uses a sword!
It's a dagger. The most useless sub-weapon, but it's in the game.
Anyway I agree with Sumez, Castlevania is a medium-difficult game and definitely not in the same league as Battletoads, Ghost and Goblins or Holy Diver! People saying it's one of the more difficult NES games, probably haven't played a lot of games for Famicom or NES. (And BTW Ghost and Goblins is a great but hard game!)
Bregalad wrote:
Quote:
I consider all of the final stage, [...] and the last room before the final staircase, way harder than "death's corridor"
Perhaps, but most people never got past the Death's corridor without using save states anyway.
Most people never had save state functionality on our Famicoms and NES systems (Everdrive have it but I refuse to enable it).
I've never 1CC'd this game, but I do think the Death corridor is one of the hardest parts of the game (I don't watch AVGN by the way). The combination of Axe Armors and Medusa Heads is what makes it so hard. And it's easy to accidentally take the crucifix and loose the holy water. And even when dying you can't get back the holy water on that stage. I do believe I have beaten Death without holy water, but it's definitely much harder and it's probably not a good idea to try if you 1CC, just like with Frankenstein's and Igor.
Sumez wrote:
I'm being an elitist oaf for assuming that someone with an internet connection has access to YouTube?
It's just a reminder to be aware of limits imposed by ISPs in particular regional markets.
One is caps. The way caps interact with YouTube is as follows: "I have an Internet connection, but my plan's quota is sized for text, small images, and small downloads, such as individual NES ROMs and their source code. I don't use it for video because if I did, I'd only get to watch a few videos per month. If I watched enough videos about how to beat
one level of a particular vintage video game, I'd hit my quota and have to wait until next month to look for videos about how to beat the next level."
The other is state censorship. Last time I checked, all ISPs in the People's Republic of China blocked YouTube and other services provided by Google.
When I lived in China, they were blocking this and other similar game development forums as well. (When I was working on my GBA game, I'd have to use a VPN to connect to the gbadev forums to ask questions)
My point was that the tangent of "a few outliers might not have sufficient internet connection" might be true, but isn't worth arguing about.
Sumez wrote:
I'm being an elitist oaf for assuming that someone with an internet connection has access to YouTube? I honestly don't think that's a big assumption to make, but I'm genuinely sorry if it offended you.
My wording was perhaps a bit strong, but yes, that is exactly the assumption I object to. Particularly from people trying peddle devices or software that flat-out won't function here, or "free downloads" of games that would, without hyperbole, end up costing me twice as much as if I walked into a store and bought them, but also from consumers who take such behaviour for granted, thus allowing the cycle to continue.
But you're both right that this isn't worth starting an argument over, especially since we could be actually discussing the games in question and solving the whole 'just watch Youtube' issue right here and now.
I remember that back in the day me and my friends judge the game's difficulty as to how many magazine editions it needed to show a full walkthrough.
I don't remember Zelda
but Battletoads took 2 or 2 and 1/2 if I remember correctly.
We used as reference the most popular magazines here: Ação Games, SuperGame and GamePower.
Unfortunatelly, none of them still exists today.
gauauu wrote:
When I lived in China, they were blocking this and other similar game development forums as well. (When I was working on my GBA game, I'd have to use a VPN to connect to the gbadev forums to ask questions)
My point was that the tangent of "a few outliers might not have sufficient internet connection" might be true, but isn't worth arguing about.
Why would they block NES development websites? No wonder so many of the games on famiclones are only hacks of pre-existing games.
DementedPurple wrote:
Why would they block NES development websites? No wonder so many of the games on famiclones are only hacks of pre-existing games.
I'm not sure, I think it was more about blocking forum sites and than about the topic. It's hard to control the flow of information if people can say anything they want.
"Why 15% of US consumers can't use Netflix, Dropbox, and other cloud services" by James Sanders mentions a few situations. Some "have had to cancel or suspend service due to financial constraints", as they can no longer afford to maintain two ISP subscriptions. So they give up high-volume wired Internet at home in favor of cellular Internet that can be used anywhere. Others are in Rahsennor's position, where "ISPs are extremely reluctant to provide wireline broadband services in rural areas". This article gives numbers: someone might end up buying a game on Steam for $24 and paying roughly ten times that much to the ISP in data transfer quota overages to download it.
Let's get back to the main topic... I'd have to say that Castlevania is a bit overrated. Now wait! Don't get mad just yet! Just because I say a game is overrated doesn't mean that it's bad! No, it's far from it! But what I mean is that there where certainly better games out there. It took me 20 lives to get passed level 2, in other words, 4 continues. I find it annoying that hearts don't give you health. I mean, I guess that maybe hearts weren't yet the standard symbol for health, but I can't seem to figure out what they do. It's also annoying that food is so hard to find. You never get it from just killing an enemy like in Zelda. It's always hidden. It also kinda sucks that there are no 1-Ups in the entire game (Not that I would know because I only got to level three.)
DementedPurple wrote:
I find it annoying that hearts don't give you health. I mean, I guess that maybe hearts weren't yet the standard symbol for health, but I can't seem to figure out what they do.
Nowadays in the "wiki for everything" era,
Strategy Wiki's page for Castlevania II implies that they do the same thing rupees do in
The Legend of Zelda: you buy some items with them, and some weapons consume them. I think
hearts in Yoshi's Story work the same way.
tl;dr: ♥ is to CV2 as ₨ is to Zelda.
DementedPurple wrote:
I guess that maybe hearts weren't yet the standard symbol for health
If we count correctess, DecapAttack has one of the most correct symbols for health.
Hearts in Castlevania are for your subweapon. Hold up while attacking.
Also it's not overrated, you're just bad at it
Fisher wrote:
If we count correctess, DecapAttack has one of the most correct symbols for health.
makes mental note that Fisher may have multiple hearts...
Well Castlevania isn't the number one best game for NES, but still one of the better games, I don't think it's overated at all.
Older games are short compared to modern games, so their life depends on them being challenging. If the games were too easy you'd get bored of them much faster. One problem with arcade machines was that arcade machines wouldn't earn so much money anymore as players got better at the games, this resulted in harder and harder arcade games (mind that arcade versions of games are usually already much harder than the home versions).
tepples wrote:
DementedPurple wrote:
I find it annoying that hearts don't give you health. I mean, I guess that maybe hearts weren't yet the standard symbol for health, but I can't seem to figure out what they do.
Nowadays in the "wiki for everything" era,
Strategy Wiki's page for Castlevania II implies that they do the same thing rupees do in
The Legend of Zelda: you buy some items with them, and some weapons consume them.
Well in all Castlevania games hearts are used as subweapon ammunition (I thought this was strange back in the day too). Only Dracula II uses them as money as well as ammunition (the weakest subweapons costs no hearts in this game though), and you also get the experience points for the defeated enemy when you pick up the dropped heart. Dracula X and its sequel uses the money bags as money, and after Magic Points were introduced into the series the MP was eventually merged with the hearts (since they where used for very similar things anyway). So in newer Castlevania games, hearts recovers magic and not life, talk about being counterintuitive!
By the way Kid Icarus also uses hearts as money (which I also thought was strange back in the day). I imagine that they are demon hearts, that Pit extracts from his slayed enemies, and that are highly sought-after items among gods and demons alike, to the point that they can be used as money.
Fisher wrote:
DementedPurple wrote:
I guess that maybe hearts weren't yet the standard symbol for health
If we count correctess, DecapAttack has one of the most correct symbols for health.
Decap Attack is a shining golden idol of localization.
rainwarrior wrote:
Fisher may have multiple hearts
Unfortunatelly not
. But I really would like to!
Would be very nice to have a heart to my parents, a heart for the kids, wife...
But I guess a heart attack would be complicated.
Myask wrote:
Decap Attack is a shining golden idol of localization.
Yeah. It gets pretty easier if you use a turbo controller.
I found the way you recover energy on the poles hilarious!!
By the way, Metroid, a pretty complex and difficult game (if you don't have any idea of what to do), was named this way because the creators wanted something that sounded like "metro" and "android" (font: OCWeekly
here, on item 2).
The protagonist's name was given in homage to one of the programmer's favorite soccer player: Pelé, wich he tought was "Samus Arantes do Nascimento" (font: Wikipedia,
here on "Conception and Development").
Later, he found that the real first name of his idol was in fact Edson, and not Samus.
Curiously, Pelé was born on the city of Três Corações on the state of Minas Gerais, that if you translate to english becomes "Three Hearts" and "General Mines" (font: Wikipedia,
here on "Early Years").
Guess I have enough stuff to create another crazy and useless conspiration theory!
Sorry if I got too much off-topic
, I just tought this Metroid history would be interesting and kind of funny...
It's kinda early to call Castlevania "overrated" if you don't know what the hearts do (they are kinda super important), and you somehow figured the game doesn't have 1ups (it has two kinds of them)
I actually feel like the first CV is severely underrated. It was probably the first true "killer-app" for the NES that wasn't produced by Nintendo, and it still stands strong today.
Quote:
and you somehow figured the game doesn't have 1ups (it has two kinds of them)
You mean the one you get when your scrore reaches x200000 and the one you get when your score reach x800000 ?
No, I mean the score based ones (that you mention) and the hidden ones you can pick up on the stages (they are pretty obscure to be honest, and some only appear on the second loop). I always get the one on death's stage though.
Btw, you can point press to absurd levels on the first stage by killing 3+ zombies with a single holy water over and over again, if you want to force getting the first score based extend early.