• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Adventure of Link Whats Was Nintendo Thinking

Joined
Mar 13, 2011
ok well im sure most of everyone has played the adventures of link...what was nintendo thinking this game is horrible...who agrees....i think they should have just made it the same way as they did the first zelda but no they made loike this mario thing out of zelda.....so i wanna know how many people think this game just sucked and how many actually "enjoyed" this game
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vincent

Retired Super Mod and HK
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Location
Location:
You have to remember that Adventure of Link was the second game in the series. They hadn't really established a standard Legend of Zelda formula yet. They saw how well people reacted to the side-scrolling in Mario, and RPG elements from other games, so they tried it out. They just wanted to test the waters. It didn't do well with fans, so, they went back to the drawing board to find themselves, and the Legend of Zelda that we know and love today was born. The series has Adventure of Link to thank for what The Legend of Zelda is today.
Remember that next time you talk down about it.

Personally, I think it's a great game though, but it's really, really hard.
 
Last edited:

Djinn

and Tonic
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Location
The Flying Mobile Opression fortress
It is very likely they were thinking that side scrolling adventure games were huge at the time. Almost every worthwhile game was a sidescroller, even the ones that were not specifically platformers, everyone followed this formula for almost all 8bit games of the era. It is likely they thought that the original LoZ was a little too different from the norm and people might accept it better if they changed the formula to match other games released at that time. Very few games had a top down view such as that.

They probably also saw the success of Dragonquest and a couple other rpg's of the time and thought that Zelda being an adventure fantasy game should change a little bit to better compete. So the weapons system was changed to an experience level system and magic was added so Zelda could remain top in the market when rpg's were gaining in momentum. This also included a few other fantasy game ideals such as many towns with NPCs and quest items to open unreachable areas. Unfortunately this meant an incredible shift from the original gameplay of the original. A few logistical problems and limited technology led to an increasingly difficult game.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
i will agree with one thing that has been the hardest zelda i have ever beaten....i understand they change to compete better but i believe they could have made a better game and still used the side scrolling format just me though
 

Random Person

Just Some Random Person
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Wig-Or-Log
You have to remember that Adventure of Link was the second game in the series. They hadn't really established a standard Legend of Zelda formula yet. They saw how well people reacted to the side-scrolling in Mario, and RPG elements from other games, so they tried it out. They just wanted to test the waters. It didn't do well with fans, so, they went back to the drawing board to find themselves, and the Legend of Zelda that we know and love today was born. The series has Adventure of Link to thank for what The Legend of Zelda is today.
Remember that next time you talk down about it.

Personally, I think it's a great game though, but it's really, really hard.
I agree with most of this post except for the statement that the Legend of Zelda is what it is today because of AoL. The original LoZ was great, so I hear, so it couldn't have gotten it's greatness from AoL and the Zelda's after AoL modeled after the original LoZ. AoL was indeed a trial and error, but to say the entire success of later titles came from it is a bit of a stretch. Isn't it also possible to say that had Zelda stayed on the path it was on rather than experimenting that it would have been just as successful?

I myself do not like AoL especially as a Zelda game. It plays nothing like a Zelda game, the opponents are unfairly hard (Lizalfo's who hide behind fences and Dark Link who is programmed to dodge every attack). The clues were way too vague. ALttP had vague clues too, but you could figure them out. How are you suppose to know to use your magic in certain Random areas? Seriously? I show no love or respect for this game.
 

Djinn

and Tonic
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Location
The Flying Mobile Opression fortress
I agree with most of this post except for the statement that the Legend of Zelda is what it is today because of AoL. The original LoZ was great, so I hear, so it couldn't have gotten it's greatness from AoL and the Zelda's after AoL modeled after the original LoZ. AoL was indeed a trial and error, but to say the entire success of later titles came from it is a bit of a stretch. Isn't it also possible to say that had Zelda stayed on the path it was on rather than experimenting that it would have been just as successful?
The design and gameplay of the original LoZ was also an experiment though. No other game ever had that type of open ended overworld that led the player to explore and discover the levels. And like I said earlier top down view was not the norm in the 8bit era, at least not until a little later. So to me it appears that both NES Zelda titles were following the same trial and error process. Which then led to ALTTP and OoT. Nintendo saw what players liked and what they did not like.
 

Vincent

Retired Super Mod and HK
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Location
Location:
The original LoZ was great, so I hear, so it couldn't have gotten it's greatness from AoL and the Zelda's after AoL modeled after the original LoZ. AoL was indeed a trial and error, but to say the entire success of later titles came from it is a bit of a stretch. Isn't it also possible to say that had Zelda stayed on the path it was on rather than experimenting that it would have been just as successful?
Yes, it would have stayed on the path of the original Legend of Zelda. What I'm talking about is an alternate universe type of situation. Let's just say that Adventure of Link did well, and Nintendo used it's formula and modeled every game to come after it like that. Well, The Legend of Zelda would be just like all of the other games out there. Just another RPG to add to the pile.

As I said in an earlier post, Nintendo had only made one Legend of Zelda title at that time, and there were millions of directions they could have chosen to take it. They wanted to try something different, something radically different from the first Legend of Zelda title. Had it been Adventure of Link, or something entirely different, they still would have done it. So that kind of invalidates the "what if they never made AoL in the first place?" thing. Now if that game went on to become successful to the point where no change was needed, we also wouldn't have the Legend of Zelda that we have today.

So in conclusion, in a way, Adventure of Link was a critical point in defining the Legend of Zelda series.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Aol i would say have nothing to do with what what zelda is today zelda one way or another would have became 3 deminsional so zelda wopuld have been well of with or with out Aol the game flat out sucked nintendo made a mistake with that game theres really no deffending this game it sucks
 

Azure Sage

Spread Smiles!
Staff member
ZD Legend
Comm. Coordinator
My opinion is: This game is a HUGE pain in the a$$. For me. I have it for the Collectors Edition on the GameCube. I was stuck hopelessly. However, I finally made it as far as Death Mountain thanks to the helpful walkthroughs here at ZeldaDungeon(no I am not a suck-up XP), but this part is HE||. Even with the help of the walkthroughs I can't get through it. Brentalfloss was right. "Why is this part so hard, Jesus WHY?" (Zelda II w/ Lyrics reference.)
 

Moldorm

Is not Error
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Location
Tower of Hera
There's no denying the game is different, but that doesn't make it bad.

I remember when AoL was first released. Personally, I loved LoZ, and I wanted AoL to be just like LoZ... but somehow better and with improved graphics or gameplay or... you know, whatever. What we received was not what I expected, leaving me feeling a little uneasy about the series. In fact, I remember the same feeling after buying Mario 2, but that's a different discussion. Anyway, I find that the level of action the gameplay provides is easily more entertaining than the original (which is technically what I wanted out of the game in the first place). The only issue I had to get past was the fact that it was different.

Is there any disagreement that most of the NES's greatest games are 2D sidescrollers? It's logical that Nintendo would want to put a Zelda game within that context as soon as possible. And, while at the time it did surprise and slightly disappoint me to not get the game that I had imagined, the challenge and overall experience of AoL was more than enough to keep me playing as hard as possible to beat that game... and boy did that take a long while.

On the subject of whether or not Zelda would have gone 3D or whether we should thank AoL for the current state of the Zelda franchise: of course Zelda would have gone 3D. However, I find it important to point out that the early experimentation with the series says just as much about Nintendo as it does about Zelda. Nintendo, like any other entertainment business, wants to reach as much of its fan base as possible. Believe it or not, there were some gamers out there who didn't like the presentation of LoZ but who were more inclined to play AoL because of its use of 2D sidescroll. I'm sure it sold more impulse game buys than the original for how awesome the box screenshots were. <-- Opinion, Hearsay, Etc. Bottom line, now games are expected to be in 3D. And when something trumps that we'll expect games to follow the upgrade. It's fun to think that AoL may have had a hand in the jump to 3D, but you'd have to expect that evolution to occur whether AoL had existed or not. I offer a little thanks to AoL for taking the role of the experiment that didn't work well. Don't get me wrong. I like AoL; it's still entertaining for me to this very day. But I'm well aware of how the rest of the Zelda community felt and still feels about its existence. And as such, I thank AoL as something different and for being the battle scar of the series.
 

Vincent

Retired Super Mod and HK
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Location
Location:
Excuse me sir, but I said nothing about AoL contributing to the transition to 3D. What I'm referring to is that if AoL had been a commercial success, the Zelda formula we have today, would be drastically different, as the Zelda team probably would have followed up and improved on that. We have AoL's failure to thank for the Zelda formula that we know and love today.
 

Godkarmachine

Angry Megaman Fan
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Location
Behind you
You have to remember that Adventure of Link was the second game in the series. They hadn't really established a standard Legend of Zelda formula yet. They saw how well people reacted to the side-scrolling in Mario, and RPG elements from other games, so they tried it out. They just wanted to test the waters. It didn't do well with fans, so, they went back to the drawing board to find themselves, and the Legend of Zelda that we know and love today was born. The series has Adventure of Link to thank for what The Legend of Zelda is today.
Remember that next time you talk down about it.

Personally, I think it's a great game though, but it's really, really hard.
Agree, Zelda II was a great game, and helped define the Zelda universe. Maybe some may think it was a failed experiment, but as some people already said in this thread, there was no real standard for the series by that time. It was the first one to have a magic meter and towns with people to visit (This was followed by A Link to the Past, the defining Zelda experience and... imagine Majora's Mask with no NPC's, do you get the idea?) Also it was the first one with three triforce pieces, Zelda I only had two (power and wisdom)
There are some side scrolling parts on Link's Awakening and Four Swords Adventures, and I haven't heard anyone complain about those parts
Let's put it simple as this: Most people hate it because of the difficulty, it is HARD, yes, but if people can't handle a challenge, simply play another game and stop complaining about that. Some gamers (like myself) are always looking for a game that puts you to the limits of your skill. So challenge is good, no one likes to be playing easy games only...
And I don't see you (maker of this thread) giving real reasons to say this game sucks, you simply say it does. You just say it's different, every Zelda game has differences, A Link to the Past is a masterpiece, Majora's Mask is a masterpiece... and they are different to each other
For me, that argument is invalid
 

Moldorm

Is not Error
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Location
Tower of Hera
Excuse me sir, but I said nothing about AoL contributing to the transition to 3D. What I'm referring to is that if AoL had been a commercial success, the Zelda formula we have today, would be drastically different, as the Zelda team probably would have followed up and improved on that. We have AoL's failure to thank for the Zelda formula that we know and love today.
Yeah, I kind of fell into a tangent about the 3D. Sorry about that.

However, if anything, I'd like to support the argument because Zelda is a series that, despite its low points, builds and borrows from each game. I suppose 'being the battle scar of the series' isn't quite clear-- As AoL was viewed as sub par by fans, it is the first and only time (other than the CD-I games as far as I know) that the series fell into 2D sidescroll. Additionally, they attempted the leveling system, an absence of rupies, and other changes that were seen as bad choices for the series. Fans didn't really go for it, and the formula was dropped. But if we're going to thank AoL for where we are today I suppose we'd have to see what they actually kept to transfer to other games. Can anyone list a few things? The only thing I've got off the top of my head is the hammer to smash the rock in the road. I'm sure there's a lot more, but I've got dinner on the stove.

Oh, and to keep the post proper, I'd like to state again: I like AoL. I disagree that it is bad. :angel:
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Location
Norway
AoL was popular and high reviewed when the game came out, and is by many considered as one of the best NES games, so it's not a that big failure. I kinda liked AoL, it is probably one of my least favourite zelda games, but it's still good. It also introduced magic meter, spells and towns and had a better swordplay than the other 2D titles IMO
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom