Gauntlet I and II:
The early Gauntlet games always seem like games that I should like, but I can't seem to get into them. I like the perspective, character differences, mazes, the action, but it all falls apart after that. There is no story or sense of real exploration. I tend to get bored with it after a few floors, so what am I missing? What makes people want to play it, and keep playing it? I will be the first to admit that I am not much of an arcade gamer, but does that play a factor? Is it anything more than a quarter eater? I finally got to play the arcade version last weekend, but it was a pretty shallow experience by myself. I'd guess that is part of the fun in the arcade, but there have to be some solo Gauntlet players out there, right?
Comments
They are also VAGUELY the blueprint for later major dungeon crawlers like Diablo (i.e. seemingly endless onslaught of minions while you're navigate a labyrinth and collect treasure)
It's also of a similar genre to stuff like Smash TV.
So the recap:
1) light dungeon crawling elements (and one of the first instances of them in an action game)
2) fantasy themed shooter
3) multiplayer (where cooperation is harder than it looks, as you compete for food, potions, and treasure)
4) 4 characters that are genuinely DISTINCT in their function
I'll completely agree that they fall a bit short of what they're aiming to accomplish, though.
I've been playing Gauntlet Slayer Edition, over the past few days, and it is much more linear than I remembered from stuff like the early games or middle-period games like Dark Legacy.
I feel like the early games didn't have enough keys to do EVERYTHING, so legitimate exploration existed (and you had the food timer).
The current-gen, though, seems like there are enough to go around AND health doesn't appear to deplete continuously.
Originally posted by: Ozzy_98
I'd be willing to bet it was mostly nostalgia. It was novel at the time, but there's better games out there now. Have you tried dungeon explorer\DEII on TG-16? I like II a lot more than one, personally.
I did try Dungeon Explorer at one point, but I was expecting Zelda, so the disappointment was high. The Wii VC burned me many times.
I'd be willing to bet it was mostly nostalgia. It was novel at the time, but there's better games out there now. Have you tried dungeon explorer\DEII on TG-16? I like II a lot more than one, personally.
I did try Dungeon Explorer at one point, but I was expecting Zelda, so the disappointment was high. The Wii VC burned me many times.
Hmm? If you were expecting Zelda on TG16 go for Neutopia I / II, Dungeon Explorer looks exactly like a clone of Gauntlet.
I remember having fun in spurts with Gauntlet as a kid but not much staying power. You can only run around so long mindlessly killing things with no end in sight.
I'd be willing to bet it was mostly nostalgia. It was novel at the time, but there's better games out there now. Have you tried dungeon explorer\DEII on TG-16? I like II a lot more than one, personally.
I did try Dungeon Explorer at one point, but I was expecting Zelda, so the disappointment was high. The Wii VC burned me many times.
Hmm? If you were expecting Zelda on TG16 go for Neutopia I / II
And STILL expect to be at least slighly disappointed.
The Neutopia games are both sort of fun, but they really feel pretty soulless compared to the classic Zelda games, IMO.
(and I'd actually say that Golden Axe Warrior on the Master System captures the spirit of LoZ better, rather than simply being mechanically similar)
I would safely say though that this game is "much" more enjoyable with 2+ players.
The games started getting really good in the Gauntlet Legends/Legacy era. Lots of hidden stuff to find and you could actually level up. But yeah, definitely more fun with multiplayer.
I need to play more Gauntlet Legends, I started a game for it but never made a lot of progress.
The newer one they released as a digital only game was pretty damn good.
The games started getting really good in the Gauntlet Legends/Legacy era. Lots of hidden stuff to find and you could actually level up. But yeah, definitely more fun with multiplayer.
That era just added so much to do, over what the originals had to offer.
I'm a big fan of dungeon crawlers and I could see the appeal of the arcade game but the NES game fell flat for me.
With that said,I'm in the camp of those who say it's fun for a short amount of time then you are looking to play something else.
The game is definitely more fun with several friends.
Originally posted by: pixelsmash
I really enjoyed the first one and it beat it . If you just have to force yourself to keep on playing and then you'll start enjoying it more. Remember this game came out in 1985 in the arcades, it was way ahead of it's time.
Never an excuse for a timeless classic , though I see your point. I don't see it as much here on NA, but I've seen a lot of write ups on Gauntlet and how great it is, and always wonder how much this is colored by nostalgia for something that hasn't stood the test of time.
Originally posted by: jonebone
Hmm? If you were expecting Zelda on TG16 go for Neutopia I / II, Dungeon Explorer looks exactly like a clone of Gauntlet.
I remember having fun in spurts with Gauntlet as a kid but not much staying power. You can only run around so long mindlessly killing things with no end in sight.
I was younger then, and didn't even know the TG16 existed. This was almost a decade ago now, how time flies. I just saw some early screenshots and the name sounded like it could be something I'd be interested in, so away went my however many dollars. Like I said, many lessons learned with the VC. I have since picked up Neutopia I and II, after looking into things more, and enjoy the first one at least much more (still haven't played the second one). Like Arch pointed out, though, they feel kind of flat and lifeless, but I still enjoy them as being closer to a direct Zelda I sequel than Zelda II was.
Originally posted by: Teknoskan
The Gauntlet series was never about story. It started as an arcade game and that is enough to tell you that story didn't matter much back then. It was a 4-player coop/competitive dungeon crawler to see who could rack up the most points on the least quarters. This is why the NES games restart after X levels. There's no goal. I don't believe the story mode became prevalent in Guantlet until Guantlet Legends/Dark Legacy and even then it wasn't a major peice to the game. Gauntlet is like the Madden for DnD dorks who want to jump into a dungeon crawler and just play.
The bolded point is what I wonder about these days. Some games feel like they are high score oriented, particularly early arcade games (DK, Pac-man, Galaga), but Gauntlet kind of obscures that with all of the other elements. Kind of like the score on SMB; a few might care, but for most people it is enough to play and beat the game.
Originally posted by: Daria
I grew up with both Gauntlet 1 and 2 (although there was zero reason to play the first once I had the sequel - virtually the same damn game only better). I liked them at the time, mindless dungeon crawling fun especially two player. Diablo picked up the old school gauntlet format and ran with it - and there's so many variations of that I see little reason to relive my Gauntlet days.
I can see the parallels with Diablo, but there was such a greater draw with that one. The sense of exploration was real, whereas with Gauntlet I never experienced that. It all just felt very mindless, while I'd only get the feeling with Diablo when immediately playing it two times in a row. Hmm, I'll have to think on this some more, and on what separates the two. What would a NES Diablo look like, if done in the vein of Gauntlet...
Because they were.
The thing I liked about Gauntlet was getting to a new level and fighting a new enemy. I remember first coming across death and hauling ass from him and his death touch. The sound effect of him physically touching you made you run far,far away. Haha.
Some games feel like they are high score oriented, particularly early arcade games (DK, Pac-man, Galaga), but Gauntlet kind of obscures that with all of the other elements. Kind of like the score on SMB; a few might care, but for most people it is enough to play and beat the game.
Gauntlet was definitely one of those games that came out during the transition from score based gaming to progress based gaming. (It was even released the same year as the game you mentioned, SMB) People mainly played Gauntlet to see how many levels deep they could get.
Originally posted by: gutsman004
..........
The thing I liked about Gauntlet was getting to a new level and fighting a new enemy. I remember first coming across death and hauling ass from him and his death touch. The sound effect of him physically touching you made you run far,far away. Haha.
That's an interesting observation, I'll have to keep it in mind. I know that I've played a few games like that, but I hadn't thought about it with this trype of game.
..........
The thing I liked about Gauntlet was getting to a new level and fighting a new enemy. I remember first coming across death and hauling ass from him and his death touch. The sound effect of him physically touching you made you run far,far away. Haha.
That's an interesting observation, I'll have to keep it in mind. I know that I've played a few games like that, but I hadn't thought about it with this trype of game.
Maybe I'm just a weirdo,but I've always liked been that way. I thought the attract mode was cool as it would show you the types of enemies in the game that you would encounter.
On a similar note,I remember getting all excited about the Nintendo Power Dragon Warrior strategy guide and seeing all the enemies I would get to face in the game.
It made me imagine what kind of attacks they had,if they could use spells and if so what kind,and how powerful were those attacks.