I do unironically appreciate the story continuity in the CD-i Zelda games, where Hyrule is actually a place with persistence and people that live in it that isn't destroyed or ruined or flooded or otherwise reset almost every game with an exhausting reboot-but-not-quite redundancy to it all.
Edit: Yes, the games don't take place in Hyrule except during introductory and epilogue cutscenes, but that actually adds to my point: adventures somewhere else, while Hyrule is still a place that doesn't need to be reset or destroyed again.
After learning about how these games were developed and how badly Phillips treated and pressured the small american-russian dev team, i would say that both games came out ok. The music for both games is catchy, too bad they are badly compressed.
Only one of the games is in hyrule. Faces of evil is in coredai and wand of gamelon is in...gamelon. there's no real continuity besides the royal family and link being the same between FoE and WoG. Slightly less connecting than OoT and MM.
I know that. My point is that the games begin and end in Hyrule in the cutscenes, showing a place and characters with continuity and some permanence instead of OOPS! Another Era/Timeline! Again.
Again ignoring the third one because it breaks from the first two, there's nothing that really makes those locations the same other than being orange. I'm pretty sure they're still in gamelon at the end of WoG because link was lost there and the mirror breaks on what I think was him being invisible because there is nothing else it could have hit. I don't think they even say hyrule in the games. I guess if you don't like the Zelda formula of most games being self contained other than the oracle games, MM, Phantom hourglass, Link's awakening, and arguably Zelda 2(I'm not listing these out as a gotcha, they mostly are in alternate worlds and are not the majority, I just wanna be thorough), this would be preferable, but that's a real steep tradeoff.
I only half-jokingly brought up the CD-i games in the first place (they're terrible, especially to play instead of watch because of the clunky controls) and I'd rather not get into it because of prior experience with provoked Zelda fans. The nitpicking about the exact specifics of a goofy and bumbling game that I only really got into while watching Game Grumps is kind of worrying me here.
My primary thematic issue with the Zelda franchise as a whole can best be summarized with Wind Waker, which I actually enjoyed a whole lot (yes, as a new world, or so it seemed), up until the interesting, fun, and funny pirate girl was revealed to be Zelda all along (and oh look she's in distress and needs rescuing again) and the Triforce fetch quest was revealed again and the redundancy just poured into the plot from there and disappointed me.
My issue is that Zelda tends to reset itself as a franchise, yet the resets have so many redundant recurring characters (also reset) and plot beats reset that I'd rather that the series try to stay in one Hyrule and just continue from there or fully embrace a new realm and stop repeating the old beats and macguffins, but clearly that's not what the fandom expects or wants so I guess that's that.
Well, it did seem a bit heated with the very exact minutae that I got wrong about some awful CD-i games from the distant past, which seemed to be ignoring my bigger thematic point about how I subjectively don't enjoy excessive resetting mixed with plot beat repetition. It's personal preference, and clearly millions of Zelda fans adore it as-is and they tend to be a remarkably conservative bunch as a whole that cite "T H E P R O P H E C Y" from a 90s n64 game as Thermian Argument justification for keeping it that way forever and ever.
Being an anti-gay furry is like being a Zelda fan that says every Zelda game sucks except Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil. :troll:
Yeah, but every zelda game sucks. Except for Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil. Yes, i am a CD-i fan. :gigachad:
I do unironically appreciate the story continuity in the CD-i Zelda games, where Hyrule is actually a place with persistence and people that live in it that isn't destroyed or ruined or flooded or otherwise reset almost every game with an exhausting reboot-but-not-quite redundancy to it all.
Edit: Yes, the games don't take place in Hyrule except during introductory and epilogue cutscenes, but that actually adds to my point: adventures somewhere else, while Hyrule is still a place that doesn't need to be reset or destroyed again.
After learning about how these games were developed and how badly Phillips treated and pressured the small american-russian dev team, i would say that both games came out ok. The music for both games is catchy, too bad they are badly compressed.
The music slapped for its time, agreed.
Only one of the games is in hyrule. Faces of evil is in coredai and wand of gamelon is in...gamelon. there's no real continuity besides the royal family and link being the same between FoE and WoG. Slightly less connecting than OoT and MM.
I know that. My point is that the games begin and end in Hyrule in the cutscenes, showing a place and characters with continuity and some permanence instead of OOPS! Another Era/Timeline! Again.
Again ignoring the third one because it breaks from the first two, there's nothing that really makes those locations the same other than being orange. I'm pretty sure they're still in gamelon at the end of WoG because link was lost there and the mirror breaks on what I think was him being invisible because there is nothing else it could have hit. I don't think they even say hyrule in the games. I guess if you don't like the Zelda formula of most games being self contained other than the oracle games, MM, Phantom hourglass, Link's awakening, and arguably Zelda 2(I'm not listing these out as a gotcha, they mostly are in alternate worlds and are not the majority, I just wanna be thorough), this would be preferable, but that's a real steep tradeoff.
I only half-jokingly brought up the CD-i games in the first place (they're terrible, especially to play instead of watch because of the clunky controls) and I'd rather not get into it because of prior experience with provoked Zelda fans. The nitpicking about the exact specifics of a goofy and bumbling game that I only really got into while watching Game Grumps is kind of worrying me here.
My primary thematic issue with the Zelda franchise as a whole can best be summarized with Wind Waker, which I actually enjoyed a whole lot (yes, as a new world, or so it seemed), up until the interesting, fun, and funny pirate girl was revealed to be Zelda all along (and oh look she's in distress and needs rescuing again) and the Triforce fetch quest was revealed again and the redundancy just poured into the plot from there and disappointed me.
My issue is that Zelda tends to reset itself as a franchise, yet the resets have so many redundant recurring characters (also reset) and plot beats reset that I'd rather that the series try to stay in one Hyrule and just continue from there or fully embrace a new realm and stop repeating the old beats and macguffins, but clearly that's not what the fandom expects or wants so I guess that's that.
That's fair. Hope I haven't done anything to upset you.
Well, it did seem a bit heated with the very exact minutae that I got wrong about some awful CD-i games from the distant past, which seemed to be ignoring my bigger thematic point about how I subjectively don't enjoy excessive resetting mixed with plot beat repetition. It's personal preference, and clearly millions of Zelda fans adore it as-is and they tend to be a remarkably conservative bunch as a whole that cite "T H E P R O P H E C Y" from a 90s n64 game as Thermian Argument justification for keeping it that way forever and ever.
I'm sorry, it wasn't meant to be heated from me. If the games don't work for you, they don't work for you.
All good. :zizek-ok:
:quokka-smile: