Legend of Zelda (NES)

[digitalpress]

Critique the critique!

Rate this review on a scale of 1-10. Please explain your score. Was the review entertaining? Informative? Well-written? All of these things should go toward your critique.

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/contest/legendofzelda.htm

[digitalpress]

Critique the critique!

Rate this review on a scale of 1-10. Please explain your score. Was the review entertaining? Informative? Well-written? All of these things should go toward your critique.

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/contest/legendofzelda.htm

[Dr. Morbis]

While this review of zelda has nothing knew for me (or most old-school gamers), I am compelled to give it a 9 out of 10. It deserves this score because it provides an excellent introduction for any modern or casual gamer who is interested in trying out the nes or zelda for the first time. It has a lot of depth, and goes into great detail about most aspects of the game. Reviews are, essentially, written for the individual who has yet to try the game, not for the seasoned veteran. As an introduction to Zelda, this review shines. It's not a '10' though because of a few innaccuracies (it was released in the summer of 1987, not 1986 for example) and it doesn't really provide any anecdotes or 'did you knows'. For example: did you know that Miyamato initially meant for the second quest to randomize all item and dungeon locations in order to let the gamer truely "experience the challenge of endless adventure". Overall, great review.

[Dr. Morbis]

While this review of zelda has nothing knew for me (or most old-school gamers), I am compelled to give it a 9 out of 10. It deserves this score because it provides an excellent introduction for any modern or casual gamer who is interested in trying out the nes or zelda for the first time. It has a lot of depth, and goes into great detail about most aspects of the game. Reviews are, essentially, written for the individual who has yet to try the game, not for the seasoned veteran. As an introduction to Zelda, this review shines. It's not a '10' though because of a few innaccuracies (it was released in the summer of 1987, not 1986 for example) and it doesn't really provide any anecdotes or 'did you knows'. For example: did you know that Miyamato initially meant for the second quest to randomize all item and dungeon locations in order to let the gamer truely "experience the challenge of endless adventure". Overall, great review.

[Balloon Fight]

I am going to give this a 10. Whoever did this spent a ton of time and as you can tell loves this game deeply. This had a ton of depth, and was like a review/strategy guide. There were many screenshots for eyes to enjoy, and overall was excellent.

[Balloon Fight]

I am going to give this a 10. Whoever did this spent a ton of time and as you can tell loves this game deeply. This had a ton of depth, and was like a review/strategy guide. There were many screenshots for eyes to enjoy, and overall was excellent.

[Lady Jaye]

Wow. This is a great review. It's well-written, it's deep and informative, even for someone like me, who's played this game to death.

I give this review 9.5/10. The only reason why it isn't a 10/10 grade, in my book, is the factual error mentioning that there's 15 games in the series. Even when including the 2 CDi titles, I barely make it up to a dozen games, or 13 if I include The Four Swords. But that's a very minor criticism, and it should be viewed as nitpicking.

Again, congratulations to the author of this review for a great job. :D

[Lady Jaye]

Wow. This is a great review. It's well-written, it's deep and informative, even for someone like me, who's played this game to death.

I give this review 9.5/10. The only reason why it isn't a 10/10 grade, in my book, is the factual error mentioning that there's 15 games in the series. Even when including the 2 CDi titles, I barely make it up to a dozen games, or 13 if I include The Four Swords. But that's a very minor criticism, and it should be viewed as nitpicking.

Again, congratulations to the author of this review for a great job. :D

[Flack]

9.

Very comprehensive.

[Flack]

9.

Very comprehensive.

[hamburgler]

10 of 10

The review was just great.

[hamburgler]

10 of 10

The review was just great.

[BHvrd]

A little more time reference, and how this game was one of the first to introduce battery saves would have almost assured this review a 10.

As it stands: 8

Very good, somewhat fun, informative review.

[BHvrd]

A little more time reference, and how this game was one of the first to introduce battery saves would have almost assured this review a 10.

As it stands: 8

Very good, somewhat fun, informative review.

[BHvrd]

I meant 9

That 8 was an error in posting. Sorry.

[BHvrd]

I meant 9

That 8 was an error in posting. Sorry.

[maxlords]

I say 9. So much information it actually overpowers the review. It's nearly flawless, but honestly, I found it a bit too long to really hold my attention. A reasonable amount of brevity is expected in this I think. It felt a bit more like a report than a review.

[maxlords]

I say 9. So much information it actually overpowers the review. It's nearly flawless, but honestly, I found it a bit too long to really hold my attention. A reasonable amount of brevity is expected in this I think. It felt a bit more like a report than a review.

[Retro Pro]

I'm not here to post my own review (because I entered the contest myself, so I think it'd be kinda unfair for me to review anyone else's work). I just want to correct some of the other reviews of the Zelda review.

There are some obvious technicalities, but I *think* I've been able to come up with 18 "Zelda" games. There may be a couple of inaccuracies, but I've noted the ones I'm not sure abou for anyone to easily correct. If I'm somehow mistaken about three of them, that still brings us to 15 - the number in the Zelda review.

NES

1) The Legend of Zelda (NES)
2) Zelda 2 (NES)

SNES

3) Link to the Past (SNES)

CDi

4) CDi game (Above poster said there were 2. I don't remember the names, but I know for sure that there was at least one).
5) CDi (ditto)

GB (B&W)

6) Zelda: Link's Awakening

GBC

7) Zelda: Link's Awakening (color version)
8) Oracle of Seasons (GBC)
9) Oracle of Ages (GBC)

GBA

10) Link to the Past (GBA version)
11) Four Swords (GBA)

N64

12) Ocirina of Time (N64)
13) Majora's Mask (N64)
14) Super Smash Bros. (I'm not positive Link was in this, but I believe he was).

GC

15) Wind Waker (GC)
16) Master Quest (GC/N64 Japan)
17) Super Smash Bros. Melee (GC)
18) Soul Calibur (GC version)

[Retro Pro]

I'm not here to post my own review (because I entered the contest myself, so I think it'd be kinda unfair for me to review anyone else's work). I just want to correct some of the other reviews of the Zelda review.

There are some obvious technicalities, but I *think* I've been able to come up with 18 "Zelda" games. There may be a couple of inaccuracies, but I've noted the ones I'm not sure abou for anyone to easily correct. If I'm somehow mistaken about three of them, that still brings us to 15 - the number in the Zelda review.

NES

1) The Legend of Zelda (NES)
2) Zelda 2 (NES)

SNES

3) Link to the Past (SNES)

CDi

4) CDi game (Above poster said there were 2. I don't remember the names, but I know for sure that there was at least one).
5) CDi (ditto)

GB (B&W)

6) Zelda: Link's Awakening

GBC

7) Zelda: Link's Awakening (color version)
8) Oracle of Seasons (GBC)
9) Oracle of Ages (GBC)

GBA

10) Link to the Past (GBA version)
11) Four Swords (GBA)

N64

12) Ocirina of Time (N64)
13) Majora's Mask (N64)
14) Super Smash Bros. (I'm not positive Link was in this, but I believe he was).

GC

15) Wind Waker (GC)
16) Master Quest (GC/N64 Japan)
17) Super Smash Bros. Melee (GC)
18) Soul Calibur (GC version)

[Retro Pro]

Actually, 19, because I count the N64 and GC Master Quests as two separate releases. (It wouldn't let me go back and edit my original post.)

[Retro Pro]

Actually, 19, because I count the N64 and GC Master Quests as two separate releases. (It wouldn't let me go back and edit my original post.)

[Dr. Morbis]

Just because the character "Link" appears in a game, that does not make it a "Zelda game". You're definitely in the minority if you count Soul Caliber and the SSMB games as "Zelda's". But whatever...

[Dr. Morbis]

Just because the character "Link" appears in a game, that does not make it a "Zelda game". You're definitely in the minority if you count Soul Caliber and the SSMB games as "Zelda's". But whatever...

[sisko]

Wow. This is a great review. It's well-written, it's deep and informative, even for someone like me, who's played this game to death.

I give this review 9.5/10. The only reason why it isn't a 10/10 grade, in my book, is the factual error mentioning that there's 15 games in the series. Even when including the 2 CDi titles, I barely make it up to a dozen games, or 13 if I include The Four Swords. But that's a very minor criticism, and it should be viewed as nitpicking.

Again, congratulations to the author of this review for a great job. :D

To be fair, there are more than 15 games.

Legend of Zelda NES
Adventures of Link NES
Link to the Past SNES
Link's Awakening GB
Link's Awakening DX GBC
Ocarina of Time N64
Majora's Mask N64
Oracle of Ages GBC
Oracle of Seasons GBC
Zelda's Adventure CD-i
Wand of Gamelon CD-i
Faces of Evil CD-i
Four Swords GBA
Wind Waker GCN
Master Quest GCN

Starting tomorrow:
Zelda Classic GCN

Sometime later this year
Four Swords GCN


Overall, I give it a 7.

WAY too much detail for a review. There isn't a need to go through all of the different swords, boomerangs, and arrows in a review. At most, you can simply state that they exist.

It was a good feature article, but this was only meant to be a review, which you finally come to a grueling 38 paragraphs later. I often found myself getting bored with this, not following it, or wondering what the heck a Darknut is.

[sisko]

Wow. This is a great review. It's well-written, it's deep and informative, even for someone like me, who's played this game to death.

I give this review 9.5/10. The only reason why it isn't a 10/10 grade, in my book, is the factual error mentioning that there's 15 games in the series. Even when including the 2 CDi titles, I barely make it up to a dozen games, or 13 if I include The Four Swords. But that's a very minor criticism, and it should be viewed as nitpicking.

Again, congratulations to the author of this review for a great job. :D

To be fair, there are more than 15 games.

Legend of Zelda NES
Adventures of Link NES
Link to the Past SNES
Link's Awakening GB
Link's Awakening DX GBC
Ocarina of Time N64
Majora's Mask N64
Oracle of Ages GBC
Oracle of Seasons GBC
Zelda's Adventure CD-i
Wand of Gamelon CD-i
Faces of Evil CD-i
Four Swords GBA
Wind Waker GCN
Master Quest GCN

Starting tomorrow:
Zelda Classic GCN

Sometime later this year
Four Swords GCN


Overall, I give it a 7.

WAY too much detail for a review. There isn't a need to go through all of the different swords, boomerangs, and arrows in a review. At most, you can simply state that they exist.

It was a good feature article, but this was only meant to be a review, which you finally come to a grueling 38 paragraphs later. I often found myself getting bored with this, not following it, or wondering what the heck a Darknut is.

[sisko]

Just because the character "Link" appears in a game, that does not make it a "Zelda game". You're definitely in the minority if you count Soul Caliber and the SSMB games as "Zelda's". But whatever...


Agreed. The above list is on par with American releases...I believe there was a Japanese Zelda puzzle game around the time of the Oracle games, but I don't know if it ever made it out or not.

[sisko]

Just because the character "Link" appears in a game, that does not make it a "Zelda game". You're definitely in the minority if you count Soul Caliber and the SSMB games as "Zelda's". But whatever...


Agreed. The above list is on par with American releases...I believe there was a Japanese Zelda puzzle game around the time of the Oracle games, but I don't know if it ever made it out or not.

[sisko]

Actually, I missed 2

There was a Zelda Game & Watch game as well as a Zelda Wristwatch game if you count those.

[sisko]

Actually, I missed 2

There was a Zelda Game & Watch game as well as a Zelda Wristwatch game if you count those.

[Gamereviewgod]

More review needed....it was a hell of a read though. There's a ton of information to be had, but not alot of critique going on here. 7.5

[Kid Fenris]

This is a perfect example of "too much information." The author tries to explain the game in generous detail, but the writing is bland and excessive. Things that could be said in a single sentence are dragged out into full paragraphs, as though the piece is straining to satisfy a school assignment's word count.

The article also fails in its attempt to describe the game to an inexperienced reader. Those who've never played Zelda won't be interested in hearing about the collision physics of attacking enemies or the minutiae of magic wands. They'll want a concise, readable report about the game, not a drab over-analysis of it.

Only at the end does the review become relevant, and there, it's nothing special. 5 out of 10.

[zmweasel]

* We're immediately in trouble when the review begins with an odd, unattributed, and typoed quote (the period should be inside the quotation mark, not outside).

* The opening line and first paragraph should've been cut. I don't need the reviewer to inform me that "[gameplay assumptions] are SOLELY the opinion of this reviewer." That's what I'm lookin' for in a review, fella...

* ...and yet I don't get any opinion until the final paragraph, after an exhausting slog through (as Kid Fenris noted) too much information. If the writing had been better, it wouldn't have seemed so laborious.

* It's unnecessary and silly to point out that Zelda's graphics and sound have "paled in the face of newer systems." Dur-hay.

* The paragraph with parenthetical references to the slog-pile pained me.

4/10.

[Ed Oscuro]

I did not notice the opening quote had the period on the outside as I am focused on the style of the review and the writing. Mr. Meston's comments are very important though--get the basics down (and do not feel bad: I myself had problems when punctuation meets closing parens for quite a while, up to last year or so in fact). Howevever, I did notice the following classic Engrish phrase:
Once you have taken up the game, and are knowledge in it, there are a number of ways you can play the same game in a different way.

I actually have proofread this critique of your review--it has already saved me from committing one typo, and has cut out some needless redundant comment. Active revision is one of the most important tools available to any writer, and I cannot stress its importance enough. Formulate and flesh out your review first; then review, revise, and rewrite.

If this review was a dog... the tail would not only be wagging him but causing the poor mutt to thrash about wildly as it gasps to let some few bits of fresh air in through suffocation. Here the source of that suffocation is an overly heavy emphasis on order. I've a slight allergy to reviews that have such an overwhelming focus on construction when the content does not warrant it. Nobody needs text anchors to navigate about a review, and if they do either your review is a game guide or the game itself is horribly overcomplex.

This review is actually a game guide in an early state of development.

The observations about the game's "free form system" are quite nicely done--I think this might compel some people such as myself to go try playing the game without a sword. It would undoubtedly reach more people, though, if the sheer volume of text involved wasn't so high. Part three is undoubtedly the high point of the whole concoction.

The "review" in part IV is not too hot. It is generally accepted that constant reminders about the limits of old technology in the face of new is a hindrance when reviewing ten year old titles. If there was a compelling argument that the game could've been better graphically or could've been released on CD then I'd accept these comments, but here they just serve to waste space. I would certainly trade these useless comments for a nod to the Famicom Disk System, the add-on system to whom The Legend of Zelda owes its existence. Presenting an accurate historical perspective without bias is a tall order, but I feel it's necessary to remember that you are comparing this game to others. If you feel that minimalism is a positive quality in this title (indeed it is) then say so--but the current sort of a "clean slate" approach to graphics and sound does not work as well, and opens you up to criticism that you're ignoring other titles that have dealt with the same problems. I gained the impression that this review was attempting to present The Legend of Zelda as its own continent, above comparison. This is not so. There are no sacred cows in good game journalism.

I once heard a Japanese saying mentioned in connection with The Legend of Zelda: "Your garden is never completed until you can take no more from it." The game is a wonderful example of minimalist design and truly a classic, and it seems ironic that a review of this game could lose sight of that plain and direct focus which made The Legend of Zelda a hit.

A good start--but not nearly as comprehensive as the structure (not to mention the other review critics) had me believe. This was not an example of a project being crushed by its inherent complexity, but rather a simple review being drawn out overlong...much as this criticism was.

6/10

[SplodeBox]

Excellent job researching the game but poor execution including the research into the review. Too much like a research paper bound for academic scrutiny. 7/10

[Drexel923]

First off, the review contains way too much information. The reviewer did a good job of describing the aspects of the game, but it needs a serious amount of trimming. Also I feel that the layout is confusing. I feel that everything should have been together instead of reading the review and having to go back for the reference.

7/10

[Captain Wrong]

Is this a game review or a master's thesis? The first paragraph totally loses me, what the hell is the writer trying to say? They're going to tell you about the game based on it's code, but since the code isn't available, they're going to guess. Huh?

It's obvious that this person knows a lot about this game, but after fighting halfway through this and still not seeing anything resembling a review, I give up. As a book or article, this would still need some editing and proof reading, but might work. You can't call this a review though.

Respect for the effort here, but this isn't a review and that's what the contest is about.

Score: 3

[Ascending Wordsmith]

I like extensive reviews, but wow. The setup is somewhat confusing, plus the crucial information that the review has to offer is buried in those superfluous paragraphs. As Dr. Evil said, "Take it down a notch."

6/10

[digitalpress]

I'll give this one a 7/10.

Kind of like the Congo Bongo review elsewhere in this contest series, the review is more of a homage than a game review. It's a very interesting document but like the Congo Bongo review, too much info and not enough personal opinion to be an effective game review. I certainly do admire the research that went into this though!