/vr/ - Retro Games

>Remove exp grinding and put equivalent upgrades around as one-time pickups.
Boom. Now it's a good game.

It's odd how one gets a lot of flak for departing too much from what would become the series' formula but the other doesn't.

>>7430525
To be fair, that's itself a response to the "Z2 is the greatest Zelda and the greatest NES game" bandwagon (which is itself a response to the previous milestone in the spiral of contrarianism). Zelda 2 will soon be the literal worst game ever made, and a while after that it may become literally the best game ever made and objectively better than sex.

It's just difficult to simply accept it's an ok but flawed game and basically just "solid". If the core purpose of discussion is now to just claim somebody is wrong, you can't really go to a middle ground. They must be HYPERBOLICALLY wrong.

>>7282530
Adopting your format:

>It is fun. Partly because it's challenging
What's the other part?

>Because you have little patience and a whiner
I was patient enough to beat the game without it providing much reason to keep playing, as the upgrades and other powerups make an overall annoying experience simply less annoying. Too much stick, almost no carrot. Oh and I DO have a whiner, but that was a shot in the dark bro wtf

>It has incredibly combat, resource management, exploration, and level design. It's incredibly rewarding.
It's way more linear and corridor-like than the Zelda-style Zelda games (or even exploration side-scrolling games like Metroid), and the management is simpler as well, as there are no shops and the collectables/pickups are fixed, not spawned so it's more about endurance rushes between safe "bases" -the towns- than about on-site survival and resource gathering.

The combat is the most notably satisfying aspect to master just for its sheer frequency, but I wouldn't call it "rewarding": like with the rest of the game, the positive feel you can get from it is more like the relief you get from something bothersome becoming somewhat less so.