The Shrine

How many of you enjoyed this game?

I know it wasn't popular, but I loved it. I liked it better than the first and third Zelda games.

I loved it, too, i beat this one before i could beat the first ZZelda. I remember playing them both about the same time, so i was real late on Zelda 1.

If you want a good blast from the past game, i've been trying to beat the first Battletoads lately and just get wrecked when i get to the pipe level. Battletoads is freakin hard, and rules!

I loved it. It wasn't traditional, but it was a great game. And HARD at the time, too. Looking back, it's the weakest Zelda I've played (haven't played Wind Waker or Link's Awakening yet), but in the Zelda series, the weakest is still great.

I never played it but always wanted to.

Hellllllllllloooooo Virtual Console.

Lox wrote:I never played it but always wanted to.

Hellllllllllloooooo Virtual Console.

Hellllllllllloooooo free Zelda compilation disc or re-release on the GBA :-)

It wasn't bad, but I agree that it was the weakest Zelda game. Never finished it, though. I always start a new game every few years, but I never make it through.

I rank Link to the Past as the weakest in the series based on the fact that it is the shortest and easiest of them all.

The Seeker wrote:I rank Link to the Past as the weakest in the series based on the fact that it is the shortest and easiest of them all.

Over all of the years, among all of the crazy things you've said, I think that's the top. Zelda III: A Link to the Past is fun in videogame form.

Kupek wrote:

The Seeker wrote:I rank Link to the Past as the weakest in the series based on the fact that it is the shortest and easiest of them all.

Over all of the years, among all of the crazy things you've said, I think that's the top. Zelda III: A Link to the Past is fun in videogame form.

I have to agree with that. Seeker, you so cahrazy! You're certifiable, man!!!

ALttP was neither short nor easy, imo. Especially not the first time through. Granted, I've played that game about 50 times (literally) so I can blow through it in about 2 days. But that's just because I have the game memorized.

I think Seek has kind of like the "wacky neighbor" role in this perpetual sitcom we call the Shrine.

"Hi neighbor! Can I borrow a cup of tea? Oh shit, my brain...I think I've got to have an opinion!"

(Seek runs offstage, where a large THHHPPPLBRT is heard)

"Ahhh, much better." (Everyone examines the wreckage.) "Thanks, neighbor!"

Oh, and I liked Zelda II just fine.

Kupek wrote:

The Seeker wrote:I rank Link to the Past as the weakest in the series based on the fact that it is the shortest and easiest of them all.

Over all of the years, among all of the crazy things you've said, I think that's the top. Zelda III: A Link to the Past is fun in videogame form.

So then, tell me which Zelda game is shorter and easier than Link to the Past?

Also tell me what value the game has that I must find it more interesting than the others in the series?

The Seeker wrote:

Kupek wrote:

The Seeker wrote:I rank Link to the Past as the weakest in the series based on the fact that it is the shortest and easiest of them all.

Over all of the years, among all of the crazy things you've said, I think that's the top. Zelda III: A Link to the Past is fun in videogame form.

So then, tell me which Zelda game is shorter and easier than Link to the Past?

The original. I've watched my friend beat it in about 2 hours. And it's a joke, too.

The Seeker wrote:So then, tell me which Zelda game is shorter and easier than Link to the Past?

Also tell me what value the game has that I must find it more interesting than the others in the series?

Dude, I'm joking around. You can feel however you want about the game. I'm just surprised because just about every other person who likes Zelda adores Link to the Past like I do.

Anyway, shorter and easier don't factor into it for me. It's easy to get into, I love the 16-bit era graphics, I love exploring the overworld, getting new items, unlocking new areas, all that stuff. There's a definite nostalgia element going on there (I rented and borrowed the game several times before buying it, so it had a white whale quality to it), but I'm okay with that. Link to the Past was probably the first game I played where I felt like I was in an interactive world. I've never really played the NES Zeldas because I wasn't into RPG/Adventure games during my NES days.

Kupek wrote:

The Seeker wrote:So then, tell me which Zelda game is shorter and easier than Link to the Past?

Also tell me what value the game has that I must find it more interesting than the others in the series?

Dude, I'm joking around. You can feel however you want about the game. I'm just surprised because just about every other person who likes Zelda adores Link to the Past like I do.

Anyway, shorter and easier don't factor into it for me. It's easy to get into, I love the 16-bit era graphics, I love exploring the overworld, getting new items, unlocking new areas, all that stuff. There's a definite nostalgia element going on there (I rented and borrowed the game several times before buying it, so it had a white whale quality to it), but I'm okay with that. Link to the Past was probably the first game I played where I felt like I was in an interactive world. I've never really played the NES Zeldas because I wasn't into RPG/Adventure games during my NES days.

I didn't say that I didn't like it, I said that I didn't like it as much as the others in the series; I suspect the reason I like playing it less has mainly to do with the fact that I don't feel tested when playing it. I am a gigantic Zelda series fan =)

Some short RPGs are among my favourites, Final Fantasy Legend and Legend 2 for example.

Anyways, it is not like I, being a huge fan, have never put any thought into this before. Though I find Zelda: Link to the Past to be a good game, I could not dream of putting it above Majora's Mask or Ocarina of Time; certainly not up with Wind Waker; and I have just always enjoyed Link's Awakening, Adventure of Link, and Legend of Zelda more.

I definitely prefer ALttP over WW. I loved WW, but that game was too short. Maybe it just felt shorter, but I was at the end wondering "where'd the rest of the game go???" I never felt that with ALttP.

Plus I always do the extra parts in ALttP like getting all of the heart pieces and the best weapons and such.

Lox wrote:I definitely prefer ALttP over WW. I loved WW, but that game was too short. Maybe it just felt shorter, but I was at the end wondering "where'd the rest of the game go???" I never felt that with ALttP.

Plus I always do the extra parts in ALttP like getting all of the heart pieces and the best weapons and such.

Well Link to the Past is 3-4 hours long and Wind Waker is 25-30 hours long. I am not really sure how it works out that Wind Waker is too short in comparison to Link to the Past.

It sure as heck didn't take me 3-4 hours to beat ALttP when I first played it and it sure didn't take that long for me to beat Wind Waker. Maybe you're just living in some kind of Hyperbolic Time Chamber.

Megaman in a 3-4 hour game, Legend of Zelda:ALthP is not.

http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx? ... 1&vi=16970
The fastest time for Wind Waker is 9 hours and 36 minutes

http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx? ... 3&vi=10756

The fastest time for Link to the past is 1 hour and 33 minutes.

Wind Waker is most certainly a lot longer than Link to the Past.

Well that proves it then!

Fastest land car speed: 763 mph
Fastest motorcycle speed: 322 mph

Wow, and all this time i though bikes where faster, what an idiot i am!

Flip wrote:Well that proves it then!

Fastest land car speed: 763 mph
Fastest motorcycle speed: 322 mph

Wow, and all this time i though bikes where faster, what an idiot i am!

The type of car that reached that speed probably is a lot faster than bikes, did it have rocket propulsion for example? I don't see how this really has anything at all to do with the length of Zelda games, what is your point?

The Seeker wrote:http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx? ... 1&vi=16970
The fastest time for Wind Waker is 9 hours and 36 minutes

http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx? ... 3&vi=10756

The fastest time for Link to the past is 1 hour and 33 minutes.

Wind Waker is most certainly a lot longer than Link to the Past.

I can beat ALttP in probably 2-3 hours, no problem, because I have the game memorized. I'm talking about first time experiences.

Besides, what I also said in my first post was that maybe WW just felt shorter even if it was technically longer. I can tell you that ALttP feels like it takes a long time because you're constantly doing something and there are, what, 10 dungeons plus Hyrule Castle, plus Ganon's Tower, etc. I forget how many dungeons WW actually had, but it wasn't that many and none of them were all that difficult. Plus, since 50% of the game was setting the controller on the ground and sailing in the beginning, that's not considered true game time to me.

I loved WW. I thought it was fun and the graphics were gorgeous. The reason I wish it was longer was because I enjoyed it so much. But ALttP is still more fun to me and feels like you're doing more.

You honestly missed the point? I dont think you did, you just like to play dumb so you can later write some stupid comment.

The point is, you cannot compare the best of one thing to the best of another to come to a conclusion that one is better/faster/shorter than the other, duh.

Lox wrote:

The Seeker wrote:http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx? ... 1&vi=16970
The fastest time for Wind Waker is 9 hours and 36 minutes

http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx? ... 3&vi=10756

The fastest time for Link to the past is 1 hour and 33 minutes.

Wind Waker is most certainly a lot longer than Link to the Past.

I can beat ALttP in probably 2-3 hours, no problem, because I have the game memorized. I'm talking about first time experiences.

Besides, what I also said in my first post was that maybe WW just felt shorter even if it was technically longer. I can tell you that ALttP feels like it takes a long time because you're constantly doing something and there are, what, 10 dungeons plus Hyrule Castle, plus Ganon's Tower, etc. I forget how many dungeons WW actually had, but it wasn't that many and none of them were all that difficult. Plus, since 50% of the game was setting the controller on the ground and sailing in the beginning, that's not considered true game time to me.

I loved WW. I thought it was fun and the graphics were gorgeous. The reason I wish it was longer was because I enjoyed it so much. But ALttP is still more fun to me and feels like you're doing more.

That's cool =)

Actually I think it is 8 dungeons, and 5 mini-dungeons in Link to the Past. Though, the longest dungeon in Link to the Past is much shorter than the shortest main dungeon in Wind Waker. It may have seemed shorter because of the fewer dungeons. I agree, the sailing was a bit annoying until you got the warp ability. That was by far my largest complaint with the game, was that so much of it was sailing, I normally like such games, but only when there is a simulation aspect to it such as in Pirates and Uncharted Waters. But yeah, this is kind of a silly argument, it does depend on the gamer. I know my first time through Final Fantasy III on SNES was about 20 hours, but other people took 60 hours on it. For me, my first time through Link to the Past was probably about 5 hours, the first time I played it I finished it in a single day (I was like 10 or 11 years old). I think I am generally a faster player at adventure/rpg types than others, but I know that Don is even faster than I am (of course, I supsect he uses FAQs =P).

Speaking of Zelda, I do hope that they have some sort of record keeping system on the Wii, then we can compare our times running through the game; Link to the Past is probably a good game for that.

On topic though, yeah, that Zelda II, REALLY good game if you like side scrollers =P

Flip wrote:You honestly missed the point? I dont think you did, you just like to play dumb so you can later write some stupid comment.

The point is, you cannot compare the best of one thing to the best of another to come to a conclusion that one is better/faster/shorter than the other, duh.

Yes you can. Obviously a car that can go 700 kmph is faster than a bike that goes 300 kmph. Similarly, a game that is 10 hours long is longer than one that is an hour and a half.

I know a guy who payed $100 for his brand new Xbox 360.

"Xbox's are cheaper than Wii."

Radical circumstances cannot be used to bescribe the group as a whole. Because the game CAN be beaten faster does not mean the game is shorter under normal circumstances, which was Lox's experience, a normal play.

The Seeker wrote:I know my first time through Final Fantasy III on SNES was about 20 hours, but other people took 60 hours on it.

I was one who took 60 hours because I leveled my characters up for about 30 hours. I had no life when I was 14.

The Seeker wrote:Speaking of Zelda, I do hope that they have some sort of record keeping system on the Wii, then we can compare our times running through the game; Link to the Past is probably a good game for that.

That'd be pretty cool. I hope they do stuff like that.

Flip wrote:I know a guy who payed $100 for his brand new Xbox 360.

"Xbox's are cheaper than Wii."

Did you ever take a logic class?

I have taken several logic courses. The question is, do you have any idea as to what you are speaking of?

Logically, car (A) capable of travelling 700 kilometers per hour is faster than a bike (B) which travels 300 kilometers per hour. These units have no effect on other bikes and other cars since those are totally different vehicles; A rocket powered car (A) which travels 700 kilometers per hour does not equal a Honda Civic (C) which might only travel 200 kilometers per hour. It is perfectly logical to state that A is faster B which is faster than C.

If someone got a 360 for 100 dollars, then obviously that is a cheaper price than Wii's suggested retail price. Though the price of that particular Xbox 360 is independent of the suggested retail price of 360 systems.

So again, what is the point you are trying to make? It seems to me like you are arguing, with weak arguments, for no other purpose than to argue. It's OK, I like to argue as well, I have already stated that my motive for arguing was silly, but I certainly do not mind arguing further with you. My argument may be silly, but your argument is invaild =)

EDIT

Flip wrote:Radical circumstances cannot be used to bescribe the group as a whole. Because the game CAN be beaten faster does not mean the game is shorter under normal circumstances, which was Lox's experience, a normal play.

Though a game played to near perfection in Wind Waker is considerably longer than Link to the Past played near to perfection. As I said earlier, it is a silly argument, but it doesn't mean that it is incorrect either. I played all the games back to back, so in my experience, Wind Waker took 25-30 (my second time through) hours whereas Link to the Past took 3-4 hours (I had played it a few times before, but not since before the release of Ocarina of Time). I think my times are reasonable considering that they are relatively to scale 30/4 = 7.5 and 9.5/1.5 = 6.33, though difficulty could be a factor, considering I find Link to the Past to be easier, that would explain why my time is closer to a perfect time than my Wind Waker attempt.

Flip wrote:I know a guy who payed $100 for his brand new Xbox 360.

Get one and I'll pay you $150 for it. Premium edition only, of course :-)

The game may very well be shorter, who cares, you are right. What i was trying to get across to you, though, is that your method for proving it is flawed... much like a lot of the research you do to try and prove your points on this board.

It is wrong to say one game is shorter than the other by taking the extremes (fast play throughs) as examples. So, your statement means nothing and i wanted you to see that.

I know for a fact that it takes me longer to beat Mario 3 than Mario 2, but speed throughs show that Mario 3 CAN be beaten faster. That doesnt mean you can say that Mario 3 is a shorter game because noone plays the game that way, it is misleading to say so.

Your research needs to be more relevant to what people are saying.

Flip wrote:The game may very well be shorter, who cares, you are right. What i was trying to get across to you, though, is that your method for proving it is flawed... much like a lot of the research you do to try and prove your points on this board.

It is wrong to say one game is shorter than the other by taking the extremes (fast play throughs) as examples. So, your statement means nothing and i wanted you to see that.

I know for a fact that it takes me longer to beat Mario 2 than Mario 3, but speed throughs show that Mario 3 CAN be beaten faster. That doesnt mean you can say that Mario 3 is a shorter game because noone plays the game that way, it is misleading to say so.

Your research needs to be more relevant to what people are saying.

A speed run establishes a time close to the fastest possible time of completion.

Difficulty can be a factor which alters time as well, for example,
IE: Ninja Turtles 1 to me is easily the longest game in the series due to the difficulty (I tend to be a lot more careful, and run back and forth a lot to get pizza which happens to be sitting in the sewers a lot of the time), yet it is easily the shortest of the games when using a speed run.

The Mario and Zelda examples aren't really comparable. Mario 3's content is probably greater than Mario 2's. The extra's in Link to the Past, if completed in during a speed run, will not add much more time onto the final game time.

The speed runs are very influenced by warps. Mario 3 had tons of them whereas Mario 2 didn't. Take them out and there's not a chance in hell Mario 3 can be beaten faster. Unintentional glitches and sequence breaking (a guy I know has gotten over 400% in Symphony...fucking ridiculous) often affect the rest. That's how you get Metroid Prime beaten in just over an hour and a half.

They need to set it up so that you can't use warps, glitches, or sequence breaking and then the speed runs will mean something.

Zeus wrote:The speed runs are very influenced by warps. Mario 3 had tons of them whereas Mario 2 didn't. Take them out and there's not a chance in hell Mario 3 can be beaten faster. Unintentional glitches and sequence breaking (a guy I know has gotten over 400% in Symphony...fucking ridiculous) often affect the rest. That's how you get Metroid Prime beaten in just over an hour and a half.

They need to set it up so that you can't use warps, glitches, or sequence breaking and then the speed runs will mean something.

There are various rules on Twin Galaxies, such as no saving, no dying, no glitches, etc...

The emulators these people use i think are glitchy themsleves, too. I watched a Battletoads one and they are exploiting way more glitches than i think actually exist in the NES version. Walking through walls, etc, not dying on spikes that i know you cant actually do.

Oh man, this thread, heh.

On-topic: I've never actually played Link's Adventure (also, I've only ever really played the first one in passing: I had a Master System when it was out, and I can't bring myself to play it now).

LTTP is my favourite game in the series*. It's just so much fun, so polished, and so complete.

There really isn't a bad game in the series, though **. Majora's Mask and the Wind Waker tie for worst, and given that those are two of my favourite games ever, that's saying something.

* This "it's shorter so it's worse" argument is typically Seeker-esque, I've gotta say, and you guys are crazy for dignifying it with a response.

** The CDi titles don't count.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:Oh man, this thread, heh.

On-topic: I've never actually played Link's Adventure (also, I've only ever really played the first one in passing: I had a Master System when it was out, and I can't bring myself to play it now).

LTTP is my favourite game in the series*. It's just so much fun, so polished, and so complete.

There really isn't a bad game in the series, though **. Majora's Mask and the Wind Waker tie for worst, and given that those are two of my favourite games ever, that's saying something.

* This "it's shorter so it's worse" argument is typically Seeker-esque, I've gotta say, and you guys are crazy for dignifying it with a response.

** The CDi titles don't count.

Heh, CDi titles I don't think anyone played, I didn't even play them. I usually do not count the Capcom or four swords titles either even though they're fairly good.

I think this game will be my new favourite Zelda come November though: http://www.the-magicbox.com/0609/game060915f.shtml

I just have a very good feeling about it. I wonder how Famitsu is going to score this one in comparison to the Gamecube one.

I've got super-high hopes for the Twilight Princess. Wind Waker was weak in some ways but Aonuma recognised them and I think is smart enough to not make them again. It also looks really different. It's hard to describe how, exactly.

I love the look of the wolf-Link bits, and am hoping for more NPC interaction than is usually found in the Zelda games. One of the things I liked about the Wind Waker was that it didn't follow a strict town-Dungeon, town-Dungeon (or just Dungeon-Dungeon-Dungeon) play-path, and I'm hoping for more of that in the Twilight Princess.

Four Swords is definitely up in the air as far as its placement in the series. It's super-fun but I'd consider its relationship to the title as sort of a Zelda-party game.

I've never played the Capcom titles, or the Minish Cap. I'm missing out, I know.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:I've never played the Capcom titles, or the Minish Cap. I'm missing out, I know.

Play Minnish Cap. It's basically the Link to the Past SNES era sequel we never got. It's like playing a lost game from your childhood.

That's a ringing endorsement if ever I heard one. I'll pick up a copy next time I see one cheap (saving for a wedding = the suck).

Kupek wrote:

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:I've never played the Capcom titles, or the Minish Cap. I'm missing out, I know.

Play Minnish Cap. It's basically the Link to the Past SNES era sequel we never got. It's like playing a lost game from your childhood.

Oh yeah, it's great, it's what you imagine the sequel to LttP would have been, like Kupek said. Other than a bit of vague referencing near the beginning on what to do next, there's no real downside to the game.

Up here, they're down to $25 Cdn new if i'm not mistaken. It's been out long enough that it should be cheaper now.

Since Ocarina of Time (where important characters besides Link were introduced), the series seems to have been evolving towards a much more story oriented setting.

Zelda 1: strait dungeons, no towns, guys who say one line in caves and that's it.

Zelda 2: The introduction of towns, and a lot more dialogue.

Link to the Past: kind of a small de-evolution, only one town, and fewer people.

Link's Awakening: Introduction of re-occuring characters, of course, they didn't really play a large role at all, there was more of a flowing story in this one than any of the previous ones. This was the first game in the series that really felt like something besides a dungeon crawler, even though it kept those elements (and made them even stronger). Still one town, but the people of the town were more significant than any other people in the history of the series. this was the first game in the series where a character would come along with you and aid you on your quest, it became a standard of the series after this.

Ocarina of Time: Re-implimentation of multiple towns which would become a standard of the series, also characters become much more important in this game than they had ever been before. There was much more character interaction within this game than all of the other games combined. Not to mention, this game introduced a day and night system, and different characters had different schedules based on the time of day (something which I STILL really love about the game). Characters began to travel throughout the world independent of what Link did in the game. Essentially, for the first time, the world of Zelda felt like something living and breathing. This game is considered by a large amount of people to be the best game of all time; this was a winning formula.

Majora's Mask: Made timing, and character interaction the core of the game, while maintaining the dungeons. This game has more character interaction than most RPGs; it takes the character schedules from Ocarina of Time and advances even further on it; giving them a three day schedule, and time can be travelled through to reach various points in peoples days, history can be changed by performing certain events. Like Ocarina of Time, characters went about their daily schedules, but much more travelling was done than Ocarina of Time. This game was very highly experimental, and it worked, it is very solid.

Wind Waker: increased the size of the world a lot, and the number of characters was comparable to Majora's Mask, perhaps even more. One thing very interesting is that there was TONS of travelling going on throughout the world. I really liked the travelling merchants, and the mail carriers, it made the world feel alive, like the previous titles. This game wasn't as heavily about character interaction as Majora's Mask, but it did have a considerable amount. This game was definately an exploration game, I just wish there were larger continents =P I would really like a Zelda game where travelling through oceans by boat was a part of it, if the world did have large continents. I think it would be fun being able to travel between Hyrule, Termina, and Koholint, and to a number of Islands in between. As far as ship travel is concerned, I think Skies of Arcadia is easily the best game that does it, Zelda developers should take some notes from that game, I do think the series' are compatable.

Twilight Princess: We don't know everything, other than there is a light and dark world (Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past both have these). The game also takes place on a larger scale world than previous games, it expands beyond the nation of Hyrule, but not much more is known than that at this point. From the videos and stuff, the world looks easy to manuever around, much faster travel methods than previous games. Other things about Twilight Princess:

Link begins in a rural area of the world with scattered villages and houses, he has a job as a shepherd, and is already an experienced horseman. The game seems to be VERY story-event based which is quite a change from previous Zelda games.


Video footage + Interview part 1-3, length = 30 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RteZSP96jms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBr4C2FE7QA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE5MLCx0xAY