I love Zelda 1. Played it for the first time within the last five years so it's not nostalgia, and I'm not a big nintendo fan either. That said, it operates on a different standard to games today and I would never recommend it unless someone was patient and particularly into retro games. You're not obligated to like it for being a classic game, and playing something you don't like three times is pretty ridiculous.
The NES was absolutely the best console ever made at the time, to such an extent that I could almost claim it's objective. The SNES had steadier competition and the european version is such an annoyingly compromised experience but it still had easily the best library of that generation.
N64 is where they totally dropped the ball and never recovered. Even if they had been actually really trying for that gen there's just no competing with the Playstation, it outsold the N64 on a ratio of something like 9:1 everywhere outside of the US.
I actually agree that Nintendo's importance in gaming is overblown, but the NES showed up at a crucial time and it's incrediby myopic to think the US gaming market isn't important to how games have evolved worldwide.
At 5/18/17 04:34 AM, Troisnyx wrote:
If you want cryptic, Metroid is worse than Zelda 1.
Is Metroid cryptic? You can get lost but I didn't find it confusing to play through or have to operate on any bizarro moon logic. There's nothing comparable to the whole tornado thing in Castlevania II for example. Metroid is one of my favourite NES games actually, it's hard but straight forward, and the only missable things iirc are inessential bonuses.
Metroid II is significantly more annoying due to a bigger map but with graphics that make every area look identical, but I quite enjoyed that too.