\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI really appreciate how, while Serious Gamers have been having Serious Discussions about what the genre nomenclature should be for the 2D Legend of Zelda games and their various imitators, the community-driven tagging systems on various online storefronts have simply settled on calling them top-down metroidvanias. Like, you had your chance, Serious Gamers, and you let it pass you by \u2013 the mob has spoken! It\u2019s all metroidvanais now!
@kemayo replied:
\nI mean, I think I object to that only on the \ngrounds that it\u2019s retroactively applying the names of later games to \nearlier ones. Clearly, metroidvanias should actually be side-scrolling \nZeldalikes. Except there was that side-scrolling Zelda bit. Fuck.
Honestly, the perfect game for me would probably be one that plays like A Link to the Past in the overworld, but switches to a Super Metroid style platformer inside caves and dungeons. Every item and upgrade works in both modes and has distinct top-down and side-scrolling functionality. There are boss fights of both types, and the final boss somehow contrives to switch modes between phases.
(Yes, I\u2019m aware that Link\u2019s Awakening plays with the idea a little, but its side-scrolling gameplay is really half-baked, even in the remake, and doesn\u2019t do anything interesting with it outside a handful of one-off setpieces. I want to see someone do a proper job of it!)
Am I misremembering Zelda 2 doing that exact thing?
The Adventures of Link has precisely the opposite problem: its overworld gameplay is so thin it\u2019s practically nonexistent. Basically, the franchise has one decent side-scroller with terrible top-down gameplay, and several decent top-down puzzlers with very perfunctory side-scrolling segments, but not once has it put the good bits of both together!
So kinda the opposite of Blaster Master
"}