Tfw my autism is making me play this franchise in order but this game is dumb as fuck in 2019

>tfw my autism is making me play this franchise in order

I did that for years. Only stopped because I simply don't have the time anymore, but I do miss it. It led to a deeper understanding and more appreciation of a franchise. That said, Zelda 1's fine. Not spectacular anymore, but it's fine. Zelda II though...

Zelda II is great and is only hated by shitters that can't git gud

The only issue is the problem with secrets in the overworld not having visual cues. It was literally designed for Famitsu and Nintendo power to scam you into buying hints and maps. If tiles had even a slight indicator where things could be bombed/burnt the game would be infinitely better.

This game does a great job of sorting out people who aren't as smart as they claim they are.

Every puzzle and secret in the base game can be solved by paying attention to clues and noticing patterns, it quite literally filters people by IQ (which mainly captures working memory and pattern recognition). And yet we still get people saying that it's "bullshit made to sell guides".

Yes, I know. I knew that'd draw out the contrarians, it literally always does. There was a time around 2012 when a lot of people praised Zelda II to the high heavens here and it was pretty obvious that they were just seeking contrarian points. I realize that the game has its actual fans, and there's nothing wrong with liking it, but some people try too hard to hard to make it seem more liked than it is. I mean, you can be good at something and still say it's not your thing.

Lmao, or maybe people have better things to do than read cryptic shit in the worst Zelda. Link to the Past and Link's Awakening are infinitely better.

Only zoomers can't appreciate the original LoZ.
Sure it's not as epic an experience as the 3D titles, but it has soul, something zoomers can't understand.

Attached: 1568345487161.png (1800x662, 88K)

Just burn every bush and bomb every rock bro.

The only cryptic shit in the game is the hungry goriya and maybe Dodongo dislikes smoke if you've never played a Zelda game.

>soul

Hey, watch it, man. This word really upsets people these days.

Dude, having to burn random fucking bushes with no indicator is retarded. I disbelieve you 100%'d the game without a guide. Anyone can beat the game sub optimally, while you'll miss out on the cool shit. If you did 100% with your pattern recognition, you're a certified autist and it's ridiculous to expect people to have that patience.

zoomer here
this game is actually pretty good

Then you're not a zoomer.

The "secret where fairies don't live" is probably one of my favorite puzzles in the series. So satisfying to figure out.

Agreed. I mean just look at this, which bush am I supposed to burn to find the entrance to the dungeon? There are no clues or indication. Shit's impossible.

Attached: 001[1].png (768x528, 2K)

Wow it's almost as though you cherrypicked examples that are obvious and easy, because they're the ones that let you go from dungeon to dungeon. Again, that isn't the issue. The main game and second quest are piss easy. What I'm saying are the random places to find rupees and other shit.

I actually did find that bush when I attempted to play this game blind, I feel like that's one of the easiest bushes to find. I found a couple other bushes too. There's no way someone could find them all though without autistically checking every single bush.

I legitimately don't understand why the game was ever hated. I don't comprehend why it isn't straight up considered the most polished and well designed game on the NES by a great chunk of people.

>What I'm saying are the random places to find rupees

Who the fuck even brought that up and why would you care now. Everything that's actually important can be found without resorting to bullshit, and if there are random Easter Eggs then what is there to complain about? You're really grasping at straws.

you don't NEED a walk through tho I would say it's highly recommended, the game isn't very clear on what you're supposed to do next and you will spend a lot of time doing nothing but exploring if it's your first blind playthrough. I remember drawing out every square of the map on a bunch of graph paper and taping them together to make on huge map to always have on hand as a kid. It was awesome but that's when I had the infinite hours to play as a kid

Attached: 1538557476661.jpg (725x950, 303K)

I have never managed to beat it. I want to someday do so along with the original Metroid but I'd be lying if I said it didn't feel daunting just thinking about it considering how fucking dated both games are.

To people who played a few Zeldas before it, it was just very different and didn't feel like a good Zelda, it felt like a black sheep. For people in the 80s I'm not so sure, it was common sequels to be very different back then. I personally just feel like it's got poor design (Death Mountain is this weird difficulty spike out of nowhere and then nothing like that ever happens again), and the English version makes it worse with the EXP draining enemies, though it also has some improvements. I don't really think there's a perfect version between the Japanese and English versions.

>If the game ruined all the secrets by making them obvious it would be so much better
There aren't even that many tiles with possible secrets in them. The only problem is the limited number of bombs (and candle shots until you get the red one).

>it has soul
What it has is rock solid game design from top to bottome, with only a few minor nitpicks (of which bombing random walls on the overworld is not a valid one).

Zelda 2 was actually well received and sold really well at the time. It's only after the series had defined its core gameplay with future sequels that people started to disregard it until it looped back around to people loving it again.

The idea that anyone should care about "how liked" a game may be is an absurd concept. Zelda II is excellent, regardless of how many children on Yea Forums care.

It's an exploration game. The point is largely to

Oh, frogposter. So you're a moron, okay. Never mind then.

Even people who like Metroid would recommend Zero Mission over the original. It's basically a remake without all the bad design choices. You can still play the original Metroid, but it's not going to be that great of an experience.

Metroid 2 is still pretty good, as long as you can stand the endless metroid hunt.

Just don't play the games in order. Most of them aren't direct sequels to each other. There are just a few situations of that like Majora's Mask being a sequel to OOT and the new Zelda being a sequel to BOTW. Otherwise, they just take place in the same universe hundreds of years apart with a different guy named link who happens to wear the same outfit. There's no real reason to play them in order.

Ok honestly, this game is better with a guide. If you use a guide, this game will seem really fun. Its an intoxicating map with a surprisingly varied bestiary. The map has this interesting vibe where there is a secret on every screen and your imagination runs wild

My autism did this to me with Dragon Quest. I played the original versions all the way up to 6 because I wanted to see how the series truly progressed. I'm not sure if it was worth it.

>I disbelieve you 100%'d the game without a guide.
Almost nobody bothers to 100% LoZ because everyone with a brain understands that's never been the point of the game. If you're compelled to know literally everything about the game then yeah you just have to methodically search every screen. It doesn't even take that long and is less tedious than most shit you have to do to "100%" later games.
If you think this is a valid criticism it means you have no brain. The game is perfectly beatable with minimal monotony by just not playing like a fag.

> why it isn't straight up considered the most polished and well designed game on the NES by a great chunk of people
It is exactly that. It just gets shit on by the Zelda fandom for being different from the rest of the series. But if you compare it to other games on the NES instead of comparing it to Zelda games that came out decades later, it becomes obvious that it was very good for its time. And IMO, it is one of the best aged games on the NES. Way more playable today than Super Mario Bros 1, which people hold up as a of game design.

>I don't comprehend why it isn't straight up considered the most polished and well designed game on the NES by a great chunk of people.
Because it's not even more well-designed than the first Zelda game. Don't get me wrong it's a really good game, but there are flaws and it's easy to understand why people don't like it beyond it just being difficult.

You really don't need a walkthrough. Using an overworld map is fine if you need the help (although you should know that the partial map that came packaged with the NA version of the game was sealed and with a message shaming any shitter that actually needed it)

>doesn't hold your hand
>makes you go an adventure
>makes you draw yourself your map
>which makes you do a bit of pixel drawing in real life
>which makes you do a bit of coloring in real life
>which teaches you how to be innovative at assembling your map in real life by gluing a bunch of A4 or whatever
>which teaches you a bit of English too if you're not a native speaker

>this game triggers frogposters like
Another proof that frogposters really are dumb, boring people.

I missed out on Metroid when it originally came out. It's got some good qualities but I found it rather tedious and hard to get into. All the backtracking and having to re-do platforming segments and kill constantly re-spawning enemies just got to be a slog for me.

I did, but I was a child with a huge amount of free time on my hands. That's really the biggest factor with Zelda 1. You can find everything, yes, but it's just an enormous time sink and most people don't have the time to waste just to locate all the guys who force you to pay for their broken doors. Mostly I just remembered where the heart containers were, where the swords were, important items, and where specific good shops were located. Basically everything else was maybe a Water of Life store or not actually worth bothering with.

Hint: A1 square actually has nothing there.

Zelda 2 was shit and the creator outright said that he was disappointed that he wasn't able to polish it up properly. Combat was bad, dungeons were dull, the "RPG" elements (both battles and EXP/levels) were annoying and grindy. There were some really neat parts about the game, like being able to fly through keyholes as a fairy, but overall the game was a disappointment.

Maybe not as terrible as some of the NES library (NES had some really awful games) but it was a chore to play through. And this is from someone who had little else on the NES past both Zelda and Super Mario, so I took the time to 0-life both games. Turns out that Zelda 2 "takes" one life for each game start so even if you get through the entire game without dying, it'll still say x1 Lives at the end instead of x0 like every other Zelda.

>the creator outright said that he was disappointed that he wasn't able to polish it up properly

Who cares what modern Miyamoto has to say. The man went senile sometime around 2006.

Good thing the creator isn't the only one who gets to have an opinion about their games.

Except it really is great, so much so that I also love any other games that are similar, like battle of Olympus

by todays standards this game should feel short and easy. if you're having trouble here then zelda 2 will be impossible its still really good even though the trek to the final palace is bullshit

Constantly re-killing enemies has pretty much always been a thing with the older Metroids. I think that it wasn't much of a thing in Fusion, but it certainly was in Metroid 2 and Super Metroid. Save stations are a long distance apart and you'll typically need to charge up. Hell, don't the Super Metroid speedruns have players refill bombs/energy during their runs just to have enough?

The backtracking isn't so bad. It's an exploration game, they're always about backtracking. Hell, if you aren't aimlessly wandering back and forth then you probably aren't playing the game properly. The problem with NES Metroid is that absolutely everything in on area looks exactly the same. Every vertical shaft looks like every other vertical shaft, because they all use the same tiles and the same platform placement. Nearly every room section looks the same. It's easy to get lost or to try finding a secret in the wrong room just because you could end up in another identical room very easily and try searching the wrong place. Not nearly as bad with Zero Mission.

Platforming was annoying in NES Metroid as well. Specifically, it loved dumping you into lava pits or hard-to-escape narrow passages if you misjumped, or dropped far down a vertical passage if you were hit at the wrong point. NES Metroid really, really wants you to proceed slowly and carefully, moreso than the other games, which gets very tedious after awhile.

>the creator outright said that he was disappointed
they said that about majora's mask and then fucked up the 3ds version with retarded shit to make it "better"

>Link to the Past
How were you supposed to figure out that you need the silver arrows for the ganon fight?

>Even people who like Metroid would recommend Zero Mission over the original. It's basically a remake without all the bad design choices. You can still play the original Metroid, but it's not going to be that great of an experience.
Beaten ZM multiple times. One of my favorites in the series. Beaten the original Metroid 2 as well. I thought the atmosphere was fantastic but everything else about the game was dated.

Metroid 1 is the only mainline Metroid game I've never beaten, if we don't count Federation Force or Hunters.

Oh i never had the original map or even the box. I played the after a link to the past cause I wanted more zeld. My dad bought me an nes and a few nes carts from the local flea market for cheap.

Attached: 1564208248601.png (240x240, 89K)

Attached: readTheManual.png (1228x850, 1.76M)

Why was they disappointed over Majora's Mask in the first place?
Majora's Mask is the best when it comes to narrative.

Zelda 2 doesn't have nearly as much exploration required. It's pretty simple to figure out what to do in most cases. The biggest hurdle will probably be Bagu and finding the hut in the forest and the fake wall in that one dungeon. Oh, and the Magic spell, that's tricky without a guide.

Combat will probably be difficult but the game isn't too punishing with that, all things considered. Definitely try mapping out the final dungeon the best you can, though.

I can't remember a time in my life when I didn't know where all the dungeons in this game were. Can't imagine what it's like playing this game blind for the first time.

Funny that fem-link has been there since the very beginning.

Attached: linkle-1.original.jpg (1034x1200, 454K)

>And IMO, it is one of the best aged games on the NES. Way more playable today than Super Mario Bros 1, which people hold up as a of game design.
I really don't have time to get into it, but Super Mario 1 is a very polished and elegant game. It's designed to be played fast and it's really fun to learn to get good and fast. It's a bit primitive and short by modern standards but the gameplay is both rock solid and accessible to all.
Zelda 2 is much less so. The very first cave areas you can explore are literally pitch black with enemies you can't see (iirc some even have pits), and solving that problem requires actually going through one to find the candle. Now I don't have a problem with requiring a player to navigate a cave blind, but as the very FIRST thing you explore? That's the polar opposite of accessible, and the original game did not have this problem.
Another issue is that there's a LOT of just plain flat terrain in the game. The enemy variety is good so that's not entirely a bad thing but again whereas the first impression of LoZ was that of interesting and varied combat environments, Zelda 2's was mostly just flat land with maybe the occasional bump or pit. It gets a little more varied later on but never comes close to anything as complex as (for example) Castlevania 1 or Mega Man.

Wow, I always thought it was stupid they called it 'Spectacle Rock' with no indication of what that was.
Too bad I played this for the first time on the 3DS

Even without the manual this game is perfectly fine. I got this when I was like 10y old and found all the secrets even though I couldn't understand a single word in the intro.

By just playing the game you will inevitably have a moment where you burn a bush while trying to burn an enemy, or blow up a wall by accident. Any functional kid will wonder at this point if you can burn other buses or blow up other walls.
Then you find more secrets and deduce more things about how the game works, it's not fucking rocket science.

The only real cryptic that got me stuck a while in this game was how like there were maybe only 2 or 3 places where you had to hold walking towards a wall to pass through it. And I'm not talking about your average can-go-though-tile secret, but you had to literally walk, stay stuck in the walking animation for a while to trigger the secret passage. That one was bullshit, I can't remember any other game that did the same.

Play Zelda Randomizer. Also, play BS Zelda. That should give you a good idea of what Zelda was like for the first time again.

The difference is that Majora's Mask was a good game despite its otherwise problems. The best parts about MM were screwing around with the time loop, all the details you could find, the personalities of the characters, the challenge in clearing dungeons under a time limit, swimming around like a dolphin, and more.

I can understand that Miyamoto was disappointed it only had four dungeons, re-used OoT models all over the place, was attached to a $100 accessory, and probably the darker tone of the game. However, those were not really factors in people enjoying the game, outside maybe the darker tone.

The problem with Zelda 2 is that it doesn't have many positive parts to recommend over the problems the game had. Perhaps the combat, but while that can be great against an Iron Knuckle, the combat quickly turns to shit when you're trying to fight a Lizardman, the Falcon Knights, or any of the multiple flying bullshit enemies which move vastly faster than you and take a dozen hits to kill. Not to mention the awkward as fuck controls when trying to jump-stab those large bosses without touching them and taking damage.

>every month or so we have some faggot on /vr/ make a thread about "WTF, ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO BOMB EVERY ROCK AND BURN EVERY BUSH?!"
>usually posts
>replies are similar to here, aka OP is a retard

the life magic spell was the only one I couldn't find without looking it up and I only did it because I was at the last palace and was hoping it was a teleport spell like the flute

IIRC Super Metroid just has less enemy spam than the first one.
>NES Metroid really, really wants you to proceed slowly and carefully, moreso than the other games, which gets very tedious after awhile.
Yeah that's exactly the problem. It's great at first. Initial exploration is fun. You have a good pattern of caution, practice, and then mastery. But then it gets tedious, at least for me. I start making mistakes because I stop caring and get careless.
>The backtracking isn't so bad. It's an exploration game, they're always about backtracking.
It's specifically the need to kill enemies and perform platform challenges that I find tedious when it comes to backtracking. In Legend of Zelda, there are a few dynamics that help you here. First, when you clear a screen, it stays cleared for a little while as you search around the area. Enemies do respawn shortly, but not immediately as in Metriod. Imagine if, in LoZ, the enemies in a room respawned immediately the moment you left the room. That's what Metroid is like. Constant enemies. The other thing Legend of Zelda lets you do often is just run by enemies. When you're backtracking and know where you need to go, it's faster and often easier to just dodge the enemies in a room and slip through the door instead of killing them all. Only certain rooms are required. In Metroid, the difference between evading and killing enemies is often minimal, and platform challenges always must be performed again.
That's why I don't like the backtracking in NES Metroid. Although yes:
>Every vertical shaft looks like every other vertical shaft
Not only that, but the longest one in the game is basically the first thing the player encounters.

Attached: metroid-shaft.jpg (268x3220, 364K)

I'm not sure that Level 8 is as obvious as people make it out to be. Yes, there is that singular bush, but there are singular bushes all over the place and even another singular bush in the eastern forest which can be burned - but leads to a store, not a dungeon.

On the other hand, Level 7 hands you the red candle (assuming you were smart enough to find it) which means you can just dump fire on literally every bush you can see very quickly. This makes searching for Level 8 pretty easy once you set down to find it. Given that "bomb every rock" is a big misleading since the only rocks you really need to bomb are fairly well spelled out to you, and you get easy infinite bush burning, it doesn't seem that difficult to find what is required to complete the game.

That said, OP frequently is a retard since they're either intentionally falseflagging, or are complaining that they need to explore in an exploration game. Like, fucking hell, Level 3 is located by just wandering around the forest. If somebody needs a walkthrough for that, then they just aren't even trying to find anything.

>Play Zelda Randomizer.
Not him but yeah it's great. The main issue I have is that the randomized dungeon layouts just don't quite have the same satisfying progression to them that a hand-crafted one would have. Exploring them is still fun, but it's weird to, for example, find the triforce in the second room of a dungeon.

Fuck AVGN for ruining Zelda 2's reputation. It's moderately difficult at worst. Nothing about the game is HURR IMPOSSIBLE AND CRYPTIC, assuming you read the manual and talk to the NPCs. Death Mountain is nothing, all the caves take you more or less where you would expect them to based on which side you enter and exit from, and the enemies aren't hard. Standard palace Ironknuckles are more difficult than anything in Death Mountain. If you keep dying, LEVEL UP, that's what it's fucking there for. There is nothing the game doesn't tell you about. It tells you about the hidden wall in the palace, about using Spell at the dead end, and the manual tells you to search houses to find the mirror and to chop down trees with the hammer, among everything else.
>The very first cave areas you can explore are literally pitch black with enemies you can't see (iirc some even have pits)
There is ONE dark cave you're required to go through, and it has no pits and ONE enemy (which you can still see if you look closely). Every other cave at the beginning isn't required and also has no pits, and the game literally tells you NOT to go into one particular dark cave unless you have the candle. So why anyone would continue to explore dark caves when they're getting raped by invisible enemies and also aware that there's an item to light caves, unless they're retarded, is beyond me.
>Another issue is that there's a LOT of just plain flat terrain in the game. The enemy variety is good so that's not entirely a bad thing but again whereas the first impression of LoZ was that of interesting and varied combat environments, Zelda 2's was mostly just flat land with maybe the occasional bump or pit. It gets a little more varied later on but never comes close to anything as complex as (for example) Castlevania 1 or Mega Man.
The combat in Zelda II wouldn't benefit any more from complex environments. The combat is good because of the enemies and the mechanics of the combat itself.

>forcing the player to need the manual
Shit game design. Zelda 1 fags are retarded.

I didn't know I was still young at 24. Thanks.

>DAD THE LITTLE DUDE IS HOLDING A SWORD UP ALL OF A SUDDEN!
>lulz yea i beet da gaem the other day on ur save lulz sry fag
Fuck you, dad.

>start up my first Zelda Randomizer
>second screen has enemies dropping Red Rings and Master Swords
>this is how the entire game went
>but nothing ever dropped any hearts
Thankfully, you can change a lot of that stuff with settings. You can force dungeons to put the triforce at the end, although given that you probably know the layouts it is a bit more interesting to just mix things up and work at locating where the triforce is in the dungeon now.

>The only real cryptic that got me stuck a while in this game was how like there were maybe only 2 or 3 places where you had to hold walking towards a wall to pass through it. And I'm not talking about your average can-go-though-tile secret, but you had to literally walk, stay stuck in the walking animation for a while to trigger the secret passage. That one was bullshit, I can't remember any other game that did the same.
That's 2nd quest only, and frankly it's introduced as well as it possibly can be by the layout of the first dungeon where a secret wall appears. (You're funneled into a situation where you should know you need to get into the room below and the only way is through the wall in front of you. I went to drop a bomb on it and when I did, I went through.)

Also to say that the terrain is mostly flat is just a lie. At the first area (and that area with the tektite I think they're called), yeah, but after that there's hills, bumps, and pits everywhere. Again, I don't see why the terrain is supposedly a problem anyway given what I already said about the combat.
> the first impression of LoZ was that of interesting and varied combat environments
You say that as if combat is the main focus of Zelda 1. Combat is completely secondary to the puzzles and exploration. Literally nobody gives a shit about the combat in that game, and nobody as ever thought "wow, the terrain really complements the combat in this game". Combat is the main focus of Zelda II.

>Death Mountain, the enemies aren't hard.
>Standard palace Ironknuckles are more difficult than anything in Death Mountain.
Death Mountain is full of those lizardmen towards the end. They swing axes, they throw axes, they're immune to sword projectiles, they have better range than you, and they run immediately towards you when you enter the room. Also, you can't block the axes, either swung or thrown. Those things are far worse than Iron Knuckles, which you can at least block and rarely run into more than one. Also, you'll frequently meet Knuckles in the middle of a room and be able to retreat; those damn lizards are either at the entrance or something you find right when you get off an elevator, meaning there's nowhere to back off to to make fighting easier.

There's only a few rooms of them, so you can bully your way through (especially with magic) but they're a pain in the ass and certainly worse than the Iron Knuckles you deal with in dungeons.

God I hate zoomers.

>There is ONE dark cave you're required to go through, and it has no pits and ONE enemy (which you can still see if you look closely).
The point is, there are NO (none, zero) combat areas you can explore that AREN'T dark other than the overworld. That is the problem. Put yourself in the shoes of a new player. You want to try out this game. You want to explore, you want to start making progress and seeing what this game has to offer. There are 2 towns and 4 caves. Every single cave you can enter is pitch black. Every single one. Literally your first obstacle to overcome in the game, other than random overworld battles, is going through a cave where you can't see anything.
Sorry, I rarely say things are outright bad design but no matter how many excuses you come up with, this could have been better. (and for the record I've never seen the AVGN video on this)
>The combat in Zelda II wouldn't benefit any more from complex environments.
Debatable, but even so, it does make exploration less compelling.

>You say that as if combat is the main focus of Zelda 1
It is. Have you even played it?

Attached: wiz011.png (768x528, 4K)

Go to bed Aonuma

>They swing axes
In a really predictable pattern
>they throw axes
which you can easily jump over
> they're immune to sword projectiles
As are pretty much every weapon wielding enemy in the game is
>and they run immediately towards you when you enter the room
The red throwing guys always keep a distance from you, they will never run into you, giving you plenty of space to jump over their axes.

Ironknuckles actually have shields, and blocking their attacks is done through pure reflex as they have no pattern. With that said, I still don't think they're too hard, just more difficult than the axe guys. I never used the jump slash cheese on them, that probably also influences my opinion.

>Put yourself in the shoes of a new player. You want to try out this game. You want to explore, you want to start making progress and seeing what this game has to offer.
Nigger, that was literally me like one month ago. I checked out the caves, realized "oh I probably shouldn't be here yet", went to the towns, was told by a towns person "FIND CANDLE IN PALACE", looked at the map in the manual, went through the ONE dark cave that has ONE enemy and takes less than ten seconds to walk through, and was on my way to the palace. Like, do you want me to be disappointed by that experience? I was excited, as I was almost to the item that could allow me to explore the numerous other caves I had come across. I really don't know what you're complaining about. The fact that the cave I was forced to go through was dark? I admit it surprised me that I was supposed to go through it, but again, considering that there is ONE enemy, no pits, and is like 2 screens long, I don't see what the problem was. The cave is essentially harmless, and being forced to go into the unknown like that was a cool little 5 second experience.

Wow, enemies that appear randomly and shoot in random directions and don't target you at all. As opposed to the Zelda II enemies that APPROACH you and AIM at you. The Zelda 1 enemies are passive obstacles. Because as I said, the combat is secondary. The Zelda II enemies were designed in the way I described because, like I said, the combat was the primary focus this time around.

>What I'm saying are the random places to find rupees and other shit
Ah, so you don't like the fact that the SECRETS are kept SECRET?

This is the person who bitches that korok seeds in BotW are inherently bad design exclusively because he needs to collect all 900 of them each playthrough .

ZM is honestly a horrible substitute for the OG Metroid. They clearly have completely different design philosophies behind them and IMO one should not supplant the other.

skip it. worst zelda game and it doesn't hold up at all

>Fuck AVGN for ruining Zelda 2's reputation

Zelda 2 already had a bad reputation when James made that video. Why do you think he received so many requests for him to cover it in the first place? He doesn't even dislike the game either. He thinks it's great and was confused about his fans always asking him to make a video about it.

I notice you decided not to talk about their better range and them attacking right through your shield. As in, you can fight them back, but that requires moving in and hitting them at precisely the correct time to avoid an axe to the face.

Also, you can only jump over axes if you have the room. The center of every lower area has a ceiling that prevents you from jumping at all, meaning you have to eat that damage if a lizard starts attacking you there or you try to run in that direction. There's also sections with ledges above which makes jumping over axes more difficult.

The biggest difference with Iron Knuckles is that your shield can block their swords, which means you can take your time with them and face them down. Unless they walk into you, you'll be safe as long as you pay attention. They're also a lot slower, with a telegraph of pulling the sword behind themselves before they attack. The shields are a bit annoying but it's usually far easier to just kill an Iron Knuckle you run across unless you know that you can just run straight out of the room.

Not that guy but I hate the darknuts in Zelda 1
>walk around them so you can get a hit in
>they flip around and smack you in the face
Happens almost every time

Attached: 1546449527543.jpg (750x715, 54K)

Miyamoto doesn't consider it a bad game or a disappointment. If you read the quote he just thinks the game was held back by hardware limitations. He wanted bigger enemies and faster screen transitions.

Playing Hyrule Warriors lets you see this flaw as well, but thankfully they give you a compass to show where shits hidden when literally everything is just a screen full of trees.

I've never played this game before. would i be retarded for doing this? seems fun.

You know what's even more funny? You can actually see the enemy in the dark in that cave. Precisely, you can see his feet. So even if you're surprised by getting hit out of nowhere the first time, your first reflex is probably going to go back to the safe spot above, look around a bit and you will see something crawling on the ground.

The current generation of gamers are just babies as fuck.

Probably really overkill desu. The overword would be time-consuming to map from scratch, the manual gives you a mostly completed map though with spaces for you to draw in the rest of the map, so you could do that. There's no reason to draw out the dungeon maps since the game does it for you.

the game came with a map, but you can't emulate that little zoomer shithead

tell me about it, I'm playing resident evil 1, non-remake
it's pretty fun actually