So... Zelda 2. (The Adventure of Link.)

[ex_ottoyuhr]

The release of a new Zelda always gets me thinking about the series as a whole -- in this case, about the second installment, perhaps the only avant-garde 8-bit Nintendo game ever. It's a hard game to love, but (at least IMHO, the Internet thinks otherwise) equally hard to hate. Aesthetically speaking, it's a masterpiece, everything -- music, gameplay mechanics, graphics, character animation, sound textures even -- all working together perfectly to create a single emotional effect...

The problem is the emotional effect that the game sets out to create. "Moving" this title is; "fun," not so much. (By the way, if you're playing the version with a silent Game Over screen, you're missing out pretty substantially on the real Zelda II experience...)

This is also the game that killed the Zelda series. If one's ever wondered why the story has been prequel-retreads of the same basic narrative for the past entirely too long (and related subject: why Ganon gets less formidable with every installment -- after Ocarina of Time, I'd almost be comfortable inviting the guy to Thanksgiving dinner...), it would probably be because Nintendo went way out on a limb with its second release, fell off the tree, and broke its leg. (Corrolary of this: Shigeru Miyamoto is a much better storyteller than many of his subsequent games would imply. I haven't played The Wind Waker, but it sounds like it was a much-overdue return to form...)

Of course, there was certainly the chip shortage, and the release right after Christmas, and the utterly different play mechanics vis-a-vis the original, and the insanely steep learning curve... There are times when a game comes along that's so experimental and potentially revolutionary that the universe itself stacks the deck against it. Happened to The Sands of Time and Beyond Good and Evil, too...

Thoughts?

 

[Cymro]

It was a good game, Fairly decent combat too. It didn't feel as Zelda-y as the original, though.

 

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Wow, six poll responses and no "hated it" yet?

<Super Smash Brothers announcer voice>
A New RECCC-ORD!
</ssbav>

(And remember, anyone who's never heard of Zelda II but views this post, that "Come Again?" is there for a reason! This isn't just a conversation-starter, this is market research! ... Well, from a certain point of view...)

Cymro:

If you don't want to elaborate, I obviously can't make you, but, well, would you mind elaborating? I've always thought that the side-scrolling combat -- maybe I should say Castlevania-style combat (speaking of which, what was up with Zelda II and Simon's Quest?) -- was a very small part of the game and of one's evaluation of it. It still feels right for its setting -- in fact, more so than pretty much any other Zelda game -- but then again, I do understand that someone wanting a somewhat more literal "Zelda II" would be rather disappointed...

 

[Bellum]

I don't recall ever getting anywhere (at all), so I'd have to say 'hate'.

 

[Pnakotus]

I thought it was good: I played it when it came out, so it wasn't such an outlier style-wise.  The combat was fun and the puzzles simple, and the levelling thing was quite new for me in 1987 or whenever it came out.  None of the other Zelda games have had the kind of epic swordfights you could get with the late-game, feinting, superfast swordfighting knights.

 

[Cymro]

Sorry, time for elaborating on combat:

I enjoyed the two ways of blocking, by either standing or ducking. It certainly became very fast paced when fighting one of those knight things in a castle (which could either attack high or low). It did become a bit annoying at time when you found enemies whose attacks you simply could not block. Overall, I prefer the combat system to that of LotR!

About the Zelda-ness: It didn't feel like a true sequel, just because of the combat being side scrolling.

 

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Cymro:

Overall, I prefer the combat system to that of LotR!

You did mean to say "LttP", right?

Pnakotus, also:

I think we can all agree on the merits of the swordfighting -- and that the Zelda series has never before or since seen an enemy as uniquely nasty as the blue Ironknuckle.

However, I do think that Ocarina did a pretty good job of reproducing this sort of fighting, or something tolerably close, in 3D; its Ironknuckle fights were fully as nasty as Adventure of Link's -- the problem was just that the game in general was too easy... (At least, too easy speaking as a player of games like Adventure of Link and the original Prince of Persia. Reportedly there are those -- particularly those whose first Zelda was Ocarina -- who found its fighting pretty danged hard...)

On the poll results as a whole, I have to say this is interesting -- I thought I might see results like this, a sort of tendency of Zelda II fans to enjoy M&B, or perhaps M&B fans to discover Zelda II, or... something. On the other hand, this is such a horribly fragmented market -- and those who read the "Other Games" section of the M&B forums are so completely not a representative sample of those who could potentially enjoy M&B -- that I'm probably insane to try to draw conclusions like this...

So, another question, for M&B players who stumble across this thread who were born around the late 1980s and later, so as to grow up in the N64 and subsequent eras -- have you encountered the NES Zeldas? If so, what do you think -- what do you find particularly appealing about them, particularly hard to get past, and so on?

In particular -- is the highly limited level of story (plus the lack of 'cultural' support -- the first Zeldas were enormous in their day) an obstacle to enjoying the games, or do they get the point across nonetheless? Were/are the graphics a flaw, an advantage, not a factor...? And what do you think of A Link to the Past as compared to the first two games?

(Of course, anyone else who cares to answer these is quite welcome to as well. Chalk it up to native curiosity, I guess...)

 

[Merentha]

I am impressed, sir.  I saw a thread on "Zelda 2" and felt my blood pressure rise, as I assumed that you were referring to the new Twilight Princess, having no knowledge of OoT or LttP.  I should have checked the OP's name, I see. 

Right, my thoughts:  It was a great game, but the change from top-down to sidescroller combat was jarring.  I enjoyed it very much, but, as seems common, didn't feel it was "zelda-y".  I am one of the ones that had "Link to the Past" define the Zelda series, and everything is measured by it and, later, Ocarina of Time.

In general, I would say that games have always been getting easier.  There is a large trend towards making games for the lowest common denominator, something that naturally includes making games easier.  One of the biggest complaints about the newer Ninja Gaiden games, for example, is that they are too difficult, while an NES player looks back at the original NG games and wonders.  Almost every Zelda game has been easier than the one that preceded it, with (supposedly) Twilight Princess being an exception.

And, off topic, is there a place to find the original Prince of Persia online?  I played it for a good year before being frustrated to no end.  I got to the part where you have to fight your double and figured out how to kill him (I won't tell, don't worry) but then couldn't figure out where to go!  I had maybe eight minutes left on the clock at that point, with a pretty clean run-through, so I assume I was very close to the end.  Any help?

 

[Pnakotus]

I'm in small minority: I like Zelda and LttP, and I also like Link... but I absolutely HATE OoT.  From the painfully long intro, to the stupid 'go  here do this' dragonfly, to the linear design, I just never got into it.  I found that blasted flying hintbook constantly telling me what to do more irritating than anything else in any Zelda game.

LttP was my favourite Zelda (simply being an awesomed-up version of Zelda) until WW, which was OoT without the crap parts.  I however don't think OoT combat was that awesome: everything, even the last boss, was too easy in OoT and the difficulty/length was more from stupid puzzles and lame story sequences than combat or anything fun.

Being an Australian I haven't played TP.  I here it's similar play-wise to WW/OoT, and even has another annoying flying hintbook. 

 

[ex_ottoyuhr]

I am impressed, sir.  I saw a thread on "Zelda 2" and felt my blood pressure rise, as I assumed that you were referring to the new Twilight Princess, having no knowledge of OoT or LttP.  I should have checked the OP's name, I see.   

I'm glad I'm becoming a byword for all-around knowledge. Sorry to have raised your blood-pressure -- and yes, the new title's a bit much. As soon as I'm done with this post, I'll edit it. (Somehow, though, the discovery that you're an Old Zelda fan doesn't surprise me in the least. It should, but somehow, I was expecting it... )

If I had room, I'd alter the title to "Zelda 2 (the one where Ganon laughs, not where you want to invite him to a bleepin' tea party)", but unfortunately there's not much room for editorializing in thread titles...

Right, my thoughts:  It was a great game, but the change from top-down to sidescroller combat was jarring.  I enjoyed it very much, but, as seems common, didn't feel it was "zelda-y".  I am one of the ones that had "Link to the Past" define the Zelda series, and everything is measured by it and, later, Ocarina of Time.

I agree -- LttP and OoT (familiar names are OK, right? ) did end up defining the series, but I'll always feel that that was a loss. Zelda II pointed in the direction of a Zelda series unified by story and atmosphere more than mechanics, but flopped for one or another or several reasons...

I would really prefer that Zelda series to the one we got, too. I've had an essay kicking around in my head the last week or so, talking about Zelda and its position in fantasy -- the first three games, at least, occupy what I think is an extremely rare sub-genre, the same one as things like Disney's Sleeping Beauty and (much as I hate to recall it to people's minds) The Black Cauldron, the early Wheel of Time novels, and of course Ridley Scott's Legend: a style neither systematic and world-building in the manner of high fantasy, nor lighthearted in the style of "low fantasy" or "Swords and Sorcery" -- set in our world more or less, and built around its villains, who tend to be demonic in something very close to a this-world-demonic sense: thus Darkness, Maleficent, Ganon, all of whom are aligned to a considerable extent with the powers of Hell in the Christian cosmology -- and all of whom make explicit claim to it. Well, maybe not Darkness -- Ridley Scott doesn't quite get what makes this genre tick, though the red skin and horns leave very little room for doubt -- but the Japanese manuals of the first three Zelda games make it quite clear that Ganon is a Christian demon, and leaves open the question whether or not he's the Devil himself. And Maleficent, of course, talks about commanding "all the powers of Hell"...

But, that's getting into the essay. I should get a blog...

Also: Next time you hear someone talk about Nintendo censorship, see if they recognize the title The Legend of Zelda: Triforce of the Gods -- the game 'cleaned up' for its United States release as A Link to the Past. It's sort of the anti-Xenogears...

(I had heard rumors of this picture existing, but I assumed as a matter of course that it probably didn't. I could hardly believe my eyes when I stumbled across it after all... It's from a Japanese artbook for Zelda 3. Yes, that's Link on the left, and I think that the figure on the right needs no introduction... )

And then what do we get in Ocarina of Time, when the censorship policy's finally gone and graphics are up to their task? Stupid no-history no-context *goddesses* and a Ganon so harmless you want to invite him to a tea party...

*sigh*

(Also, also: Those fairies in Sleeping Beauty? Apparently they have a real Eastern European analogue...)

In general, I would say that games have always been getting easier.  There is a large trend towards making games for the lowest common denominator, something that naturally includes making games easier.  One of the biggest complaints about the newer Ninja Gaiden games, for example, is that they are too difficult, while an NES player looks back at the original NG games and wonders.  Almost every Zelda game has been easier than the one that preceded it, with (supposedly) Twilight Princess being an exception.

Deep in the recesses of the curmedgeonly part of my soul, there's a voice whispering -- well, screaming actually, but he's muffled by several hundred layers of mental content, so it sounds like a whisper -- that this is all the fault of the move to 3D playing spaces and the pursuit of versimilitude within. Think about it: If The Legend of Zelda were to be remade, project starting tomorrow, infinite budget and time but limited to existing hardware, how could it ever reproduce the battles with roomfuls of eight blue Darknuts/Wizzrobes in Death Mountain? You can't with modern technology -- either the fight would be stupid (eight Darknuts in a room, all taking turns to fight like Ocarina's Stalfos) or stupidly hard (imagine for a second those same eight Darknuts in Mount and Blade )...

I think it'll be a pretty long while yet -- well, long by game development standards, probably a decade or so -- before someone manages to figure out how to reproduce the genuinely heart-pounding action of the NES on modern-style systems. Until then, we're stuck with the insanely easy and the insanely difficult...

Then again, maybe not. Maybe the trick is just to limit the 'degrees of freedom' the PC commands -- what are your thoughts on the remake of Sid Meier's Pirates!, or especially on Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time? (Speaking of which, wow. Between being the first game since The Legend of Zelda to handle like The Legend of Zelda -- the fight with spoiler-really-important-character about a third of the way through the game is how The Ocarina of Time's battles *should* have played, right down to the music -- and having a control scheme that's an almost perfect fit with the Wii, either Nintendo should buy Ubisoft or Ubisoft should buy Nintendo. They're going to go together like peanut butter and chocolate...)

And, off topic, is there a place to find the original Prince of Persia online?  I played it for a good year before being frustrated to no end.  I got to the part where you have to fight your double and figured out how to kill him (I won't tell, don't worry) but then couldn't figure out where to go!  I had maybe eight minutes left on the clock at that point, with a pretty clean run-through, so I assume I was very close to the end.  Any help?

Yes, try here -- Abandonia. (By the way: I do own a copy of the original game.)

Now there is a 2d platformer. The more I think about it, the more I conclude that no one gives graphics enough real credit, particularly not in a game like this one -- it wasn't about the technology, it was about the art. PoP's animations were fluid, beautiful -- and still perfectly playable. Excuse me while I go burn an hour...

And speaking of the importance of animations in a game -- take a look at this: differences between Zelda II in its Japanese and English forms. It's amazing how much the translation/localization process improved it -- quite a contrast with the usual at-least-partially-accurate stories about SNES RPGs...

Pnakotus:

Yes, you're a small minority. A very small minority.

However, the more I think about the Zelda series, especially its storytelling, the more I think you might be right. I thought the intro to OoT was reasonably good, though I do understand how it could seem inordinately long; the fairy was annoying but not pathologically so (not even on Jar-jar levels, let alone, say, Ewoks...); but on the other hand...

Yes, the combat ended up too easy. Z-targetting was a brilliant idea, but the only point where it worked right was with the Ironknuckle fights in the Spirit Temple -- the ordinary, 'fencing' enemies were a little too simple to take on. (I seem to recall playing through the entire game without Z-targetting a single fight, which made things much more interesting -- and at any rate, switching from 'lock' to 'hold' made things better, but if that's the case it should've shipped that way.)

I also thought that the game was more or less right in terms of linearity, but it lacked human interest. This was a 64-bit system we were using, and it couldn't do much better than Myst? There were a few brilliant sequences (escaping Ganon's tower with Princess Zelda, or anything in which Malon appeared), but no overarching storyline -- far too much of 'Look, Link! The cloud over Death Mountain is red, not blue! We should find out what's wrong!'

My biggest objection to the game ends up being on storyline (not coincidentally, the area I always pay the most attention to in games ) -- it might be fancifully be called "What They Did to the Spirit World." I thought that the 'goddesses' creation account felt both censored and passé, like something out of Disney's character-assassination of Poacahantas or something, and that was before I had even a hint of the existance of what I linked to above -- before I knew that certain themes in the early parts of the series were anything more than coincidence.

Still, though, that was almost nothing compared to what they did to Ganon. Of all the Zeldas I've played -- which end with OoT, unfortunately -- this is the one in which he's least present, least interesting, and certainly least frightening. The Ocarina of Time did to him what Super Mario RPG did to Bowser; Ganon goes from an awe-inspiring demon with an origin somewhere in the mists of time, to an ambitious Arab with a wierdly deep laugh and a good sense of humor. In this one, we see Ganon kneeling to the king of Hyrule, Ganon riding a horse, Ganon laughing at a little kid, Ganon making schemes, Ganon being flustered, Ganon desperate, Ganon playing an organ...

As I said above, after this game, I felt like I could practically invite the guy to a tea party. How the mightily characterized have fallen...

And, of course, this was Ganon at his least present as well as his least menacing -- particularly in the second half. You would think that the wielder of the Triforce of Power would be able to do something to keep the wielder of the Triforce of Courage from traipsing around Hyrule screwing up his plans, but no... Likewise, where were his footsoldiers? No Lynels, no Moblins, no Wizzrobes, Darknuts, virtually no Stalfos -- all the miscellaneous troops we've come to know and love (well, in the case of Blue Wizzrobes, make that 'hate') were absent. Ganon had no army, just some random guardian monsters and a curse on the landscape, and the few times he did actually make a difference in the story -- abducting Zelda being the biggest example -- were hugely anomolous...

So, in sum, *sigh*.

But, of course, Wind Waker was worse. "I... coveted that wind, I suppose." THIS is the "Lord of Darkness" of the original game, the pig-faced demon whose appearance no one has lived to describe, vulnerable only to silver, commander of an army of evil spirits from Hell itself (see bottom of page, or control-F for "Makai"), who can be revived from death by sacrificing his killer and sprinkling the blood over his ashes? Basic principle of this genre of fantasy, about as basic as 'do not throw an armed hand grenade straight up in the air': NEVER show your villain melancholic, overweight and middle-aged!

Credit where credit's due, though: I did like the Miyazaki-esque 'archaic' introduction to The Wind Waker. I'm always partial to that sort of thing, I suppose...

 

[Merentha]

*grin*  Nice title.

Pnakotus-interesting.  I found OoT easier than any of the others, but absolutely loved it regardless.  WW was, so far, the worst of the Zelda games that I can actually think of right now.

I'm curious, how did you feel about Majora's Mask?

(oh, about the flying hintbook:  Navi was so much cooler than that ****ing flying arrow!  )

Now, about Prince of Persia...I much prefer the original (though that might be because I never managed to beat the damn thing) to the newer version.  Had they kept the timer, my estimation might have gone up drastically.  The combat was fluid and very well designed, but I preferred the (easier) PoP:WW's system.  Plotwise, I thought it was lacking, but then, PoP was never known for its plot. 

As far as it feeling like a Legend of Zelda game...perhaps.  Combat, yes.  The wallrunning and so forth would be excessive for Link, but the acrobatic rolls would fit nicely.

 

[Pnakotus]

I never played Majoras Mask, and indeed didn't know it even existed until I saw the MM level in SSB:M.   I think I didn't like OoT because it was ugly, easy, boring and stupid (to me, anyway) and it treated me like some kind of retard.  I liked wandering around the plain killing things for a laugh, but having that bloody dragonfly say 'go here do this' was really, really annoying.  It lost the open, meandering feeling of adventure you got in the earlier games, and instead pushed you to complete a story - in the same way as the Final Fantasy video plays (no, they're not games).  I want to do my own thing, not uncover some random person's idea of a thrilling fantasy story.

At least it didn't have child-molester Tinkle in it.  WTF is going on with THAT guy? :S

I'm fine with WW because it's clearly a kids game, it's easy, and it doesn't hold your hand too much.  Some of it is deeply silly (King of Hyrule's a boat  now? ) but it's fine for a laugh.  The worst part of it for me is the bloody leaf people, since they remind me of the pixie-people in OoT.  *waves fist* lol

Is the arrow the thing that follows you in TP?  Le sigh... if it's more annoying than OoT's thing I can't see myself playing TP for more than fifteen minutes.

 

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Merentha:

(On our hypothetical Prince of Hyrule: The Ocarina of Sands: )

I agree, the wall-running and so on would be pretty inappropriate, but I could see Link (with a little suitable poetic license) vaulting over enemies or thereabouts -- though not quite so dramatically. Probably his rolls and dodges would allow for an effective way of escaping hostile crowds -- an issue which must be addressed with the Sands of Time engine.

I've never played Warrior Within, though. (One guess why. ) How do its combat mechanics differ? (Edit: I originally said "storyline," and misspelled it to boot. Yes, hello, Mr. Freud...)

Pnakotus:

On Final Fantasy and video-game storytelling:

Let me guess, your first Final Fantasy was 7 or later, and/or you play a lot of the recent ones? (They jumped the shark when they left Midgar, IMHO, and sacrificed all remaining credibility in that horribly ill-timed snowboarding sequence. I kind of stopped caring about Squaresoft's flagship after that... )

However, I have this odd feeling that if we continue to talk about storytelling in games and the ludological validity of the Final Fantasy series, this thread will get very large, very fast, in a very inappropriate manner. I only recently finished a horribly frivolous argument about the ontological appropriateness of starfighters, over in the Star Wars mod, and I don't want to get sucked into a debate that makes the starfighter question seem modest...

Do you agree with my thoughts on Ganon, though?

On Tingle

You are much better off not asking. I am much better off not asking. We are all much better off not asking. Bah, back when the Zelda series was the Zelda series a freak like that would've been eaten by an Aquamentus or used for Moblin javelin-throwing target practice or sacrificed for some black magic or other in three seconds flat...

(*grumbles off into distance*)

On TTP linearity

I've heard some complaints that TTP is just a little on the linear side. However, I'm waiting until I play the game to make judgements on it -- and I'd like to add that I'm being a little unrealistic about Ocarina of Time. The flaws I described were not immediately obvious, not by any means -- they're the sort that arise on reflection and on doing one's own narratological planning...

 

[Merentha]

Warrior Within   allowed you to kill enemies without using the finishing move, something I thought was a huge improvement over SoT.  Further, you were able to manipulate enemies more directly, grabbing them, throwing them, using them as shields, etc.  In addition, you could use the environment more, something I thought drastically improved the combat.

As to Ganon being villainous...I'm not sure I enjoy a wholly evil nemesis.  One that has motivations, rather than the stereotypical 'destroy universe' is much more compelling.  For the sake of example (sorry, I have a fever, so I need examples at the moment), its Thrawn vs. Darth Vader (as seen in ANH).  Admittedly, Ganon is no Thrawn, but at least OoT's enemy seemed...human (or Gerudo, I suppose ) I can understand someone wanting the power of the gods, not someone wanting to destroy the world for no reason.  I suppose that's why Christianity's devil never sat well with me either...Milton's Lucifer is much more compelling.

Pnakotus:  No, the arrow is the thing that follows you around in Wind Waker.  tTP returns you to a fairy aide, iirc.

Regarding the linearity of tTP, I had heard that it was more open-ended than OoT, which clearly does not mean much to you. 

 

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Warrior Within   allowed you to kill enemies without using the finishing move, something I thought was a huge improvement over SoT.  Further, you were able to manipulate enemies more directly, grabbing them, throwing them, using them as shields, etc.  In addition, you could use the environment more, something I thought drastically improved the combat.

Sounds like a huge improvement. Agreed.

As to Ganon being villainous...I'm not sure I enjoy a wholly evil nemesis.  One that has motivations, rather than the stereotypical 'destroy universe' is much more compelling.  For the sake of example (sorry, I have a fever, so I need examples at the moment), its Thrawn vs. Darth Vader (as seen in ANH).  Admittedly, Ganon is no Thrawn, but at least OoT's enemy seemed...human (or Gerudo, I suppose ) I can understand someone wanting the power of the gods, not someone wanting to destroy the world for no reason.  I suppose that's why Christianity's devil never sat well with me either...Milton's Lucifer is much more compelling.

On the other hand, there is a certain line between "nuanced" and "ridiculous," and it doesn't take much for a villain who started out "purely villainous" to cross it -- the Zelda series crossed it with OoT (and to some extent with LttP, where Agathnim kind of stole the show), much as how the Star Wars trilogy crossed it with The Phantom Menace if not Return of the Jedi. After this, there's no longer much of a point... (Speaking of which, did I ever mention that prequels are poison? )

Also, the original Ganon had no discernable "destroy universe" ambitions -- and if his "rule universe" ambitions were markedly unsympathetic, they were at least markedly possible, and not in the least unrealistic -- think Joseph Stalin with floppy ears. (Adolph Hitler would be both cliche and a much less cut-and-dried example.)

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that there's one style of this sort of fiction wherein the appeal is "rooting for the villain," as it were -- understanding both sides of the conflict and emphathizing with both -- and there's a different one where the appeal is in really not wanting the hero(es) to lose. Both can work very well; Terminator 2 would be another good example of the latter -- as would be Fire Emblem 4, for the most part, if we want to stay in the realm of video games. (Or, heck, even The Lord of the Rings, though it somehow fails to make Sauron an altogether credible enemy. Note to Sauron from Ridley Scott: A few steppings out of mirrors or apparitions in the smoke from a campfire can work wonders for your ratings... )

And as for the Devil, and his presentation in various forms -- what Christian denominations were you getting your 'picture' of him from? Catholicism has always dwelt on how his sins were/are pride and envy, a desire to, well, rule the universe (think Joseph Stalin with all manner of preternatural and supernatural gifts, and no corporeal body...), and failing that, a desire to wreck the world out of spite. You certainly don't get the impression that he's enjoying "reigning in Hell rather than serving in Heaven," but it's all too true that he'd never be willing to quit.

Milton's Lucifer, by contrast, never struck me as 'compelling' so much as 'a borderline pantywaist,' no better than the rest of the poem -- Paradise Lost is Christian cosmology by someone who might as well be a Confucian for all he understands of it. (Actually, a Confucian would probably have understood Genesis much better than Milton did -- would have avoided Milton's vainglorious Christ, smug angels, irritating and boring Adam... Yes, good is harder to write than evil, but if one has Paradise Lost-level ambitions, one should be prepared to do both effectively...)

However, it's extremely late, and I have work tomorrow morning. I'm signing off for the night...

 

[Pnakotus]

Merentha, I haven't played WW for a while (sold my GC et al) but I don't remember any hint-thing in it.  You could talk to the King of Hyrule, and he'd say 'you should do x', but I don't remember being harrassed by some unavoidable arrow thing.  Like, a compass arrow or a physical wooden arrow? 

 

[Merentha]

The targetting system involved a giant floating green arrow.  Navi never particularly gave me hints in OoT unless I asked her to, just like the arrow. 

 

[Pnakotus]

Eh?  How can the targetting cursor give me hints? The damn Navi kept opening text windows on me all the time. 

 

[Merentha]

If you target inanimate objects, Link would examine them.  I don't remember Navi talking to me that much. 

Edit:  Oh, you mean the "Hey, Link, Zelda told you to go to the Shadow Temple" thing that she would occasionally do.  Eh, never bothered me, to be honest.  I enjoyed Navi's company, would have liked talking to her more. 

 

[Cymro]

You did mean to say "LttP", right?

LotR = Lord of the Rings

Link to the Past was probably my favourite Zelda game, because there were more puzzles and the like than Zelda 2.

As for OoT, It was, in my opinion, a very good game, but it just doesn't match up to the rest of the series somehow. However... Ganon was one of my favourite Boss Fights in a game, ever.