Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(+1)

So, I see a lot of downvote on your comment, and no explanation for them. I'll try to explain where those downvote came from, as it feels unfair to a comment trying to give constructive criticism.

This game is a port of the game "Zelda's Adventure" on the Philips CD-i, which is an officially licensed game by Nintendo, but developed by Viridis Corporation. It is the third games from the infamous Phillips CD-i Zelda trifecta.

Now, knowing this, this game is a one-to-one port, meaning that every points you proposed an improvement does exist in the original game. It is actually impressive to me that they would go the next miles to not change anything game design wise, as it is not advertised as a demake, but really as a port.

Now, if one would actually make a demake, those points that you pointed out would be really useful. 

As a sidenote, if you want a Phillips CD-i Zelda game but with better controls, I can't recommend Zelda CD-i Remastered by Dopply enough (https://x.com/thedopster/status/1332345549429886979?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp...), or the game heavily inspired by them (featuring the voice of Link), Arzette: The Jewel of Faramore, also by Dopply (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1924780/Arzette_The_Jewel_of_Faramore/).

I am very well aware of the CD-i games, though I never played Zelda’s Adventure (just the other two). I’m also aware of the PC remakes and the very well done Arzette.

While I don’t know all of what the dev (john-lay) put into this, I don’t think “port” is the right word here, unless he actually used the source code from the CD-i game (is this even available anywhere?). I’d say that remake/demake would be more applicable. But, that’s more of a semantics argument, I suppose.

Even if it’s an unpopular opinion, I still feel this would benefit from “feeling” more like a main Zelda game.