Why "Willow" Is Better Than "The Legend of Zelda"

Put your head back together and consider: 

The Legend of Zelda series is considered one of the greatest video game series of all time, but how many of the internet's die-hard Zelda fanatics have actually played the original, and underneath the fan-worship of today, how does it actually stand up to the competitors of its time?

To put things in perspective, in 1989 there was no PlayStation or N64, or even Super Nintendo. There was no internet, so TV ads and word of mouth were the only ways an average gamer could hear about how good or bad a game was. Nintendo was putting loads of money into advertising for big name games like Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda, but this meant that armloads of wonderful games went largely unnoticed during the NES's heyday. Today, I am giving an overlooked gem of a game its moment in the limelight. Or drab-greenlight, whatever the background of this blog is.

The Legend of Zelda (further referred to as "Zelda") came pre-packaged with a large map and enemy guide, along with the standard instruction booklet. Some of the first cartridges made were shiny gold (not the actual element Au), and in the game's advertisements, much was made of the intrepid adventurer, Link, who would restore peace to Hyrule through his feats of bravery in perilous lands and dark dungeons. The game featured hum-able tunes to accompany its simple but representative graphics. There were heart pieces scattered across the land to increase the hero's health capacity, and certain weapons could be found throughout the game that would make him more formidable in the face of Gannon, the game's frightful antagonist. Zelda came early in the NES's lifespan, and the beginning of the NES-era marked a shift from the earlier Atari-era, where games typically consisted of one screen and were not meant to be "beaten" but to be played until a high score was achieved. Zelda came heavy and hard with several hours of gameplay for new players, a sizable map to unlock and not one but two items that could be carried simultaneously. Given all of this grandeur and wonder, what more could a kid want?

The above description of Zelda describes what the game was advertised to be, but it fails to denote the game's flaws. While playing the game, the first thing I noticed, which continued until the end of the game, was the oversimplified instruction given to the player. Not one sequence of dialogue in the game goes over two lines, and each line contains less than 30 characters. After each instruction, I thought, "Why am I doing this? Why do I need to get the flute? Could you not at least make up a reason?" The game feels like the most fun busywork assignment you ever got in school - no matter how fun it is, it's still just busywork.

Willow, on the other hand, came out without much ado. There was little advertising and the game simply came in a box with an instruction manual, no frills or send-away offers. Immediately after inserting the game and turning the console on, though, the trickle of emotion began that the game would continue to pull from me, with its rich dialogue, multi-layered characters, detailed environments, and action-packed gameplay, all backed by one of the best soundtracks on the NES. The music of Willow is sweet and nostalgic, where the music of Zelda is action-RPG fare, for sure, but annoying after an hour of play, and after I put ten non-consecutive hours into the game, it sounded rudimentary to the point of being childish.

Willow is fairly standard action-RPG material; a lone hero equipped with sword and shield sets out on an adventure to restore peace to the fantastic land he lives in. He gains experience for each enemy killed and levels up on a challenging but reasonable basis. The game combines elements of Final Fantasy with oddities like StarTropics and The Battle of Olympus, with smooth animation and swordplay that make Zelda feel choppy and clunky.

The most important part of any game is how it plays, and this is where the two games stand most certainly apart. In Zelda, the player is given brutishly simple instructions and guided exactly where they need to go. In Willow, the player is guided through intelligent level design, landscaping, and only very general advice by the characters Willow (main character) talks to. The game guides you in a hands-off fashion, allowing for much exploring and adventuring. I could talk about this for several more hours, but let me wrap things up here:

1. Willow's music is far superior to Zelda's.
2. Willow controls much smoother than Zelda.
3. Willow does not hand-hold the player like Zelda does.
4. Willow's characters have depth and interest, where Zelda's do not.
5. Willow's map design allows for exploration and adventure that is rewarded by leveling up, where exploration in Zelda only results in gaining money.
6. Willow is considerably cheaper to purchase as a used game than Zelda.

The lesson here, kids, is that companies can brag on their games all they want, but the proof is in the pixels.

-Brian