Link's Awakening Remake is fun, but not worth 60 bucks due to lack of content

[Odeko]

"This game is not as long as Breath of the Wild so it's not worth $60" a pretty unengaging take

We live in a post-Binding of Isaac world where all games that cost more than $15 dollars and last less than 800 hours aren't going to be the best value for your money. I'd much rather just talk about the quality of the entertainment you got from the game, rather than the raw quantity of content. Link's Awakening is short, sure, but it's also a top 5 Zelda game.

 

[mrmickfran]

Agreed, it was fun but not worth $60

 

[Dyle]

Yeah, but at least everyone knew they were getting a prettier version of a Gameboy game. It's a real shame they only added the half-assed dungeon builder

 

[furfoot]

Way to expensive for a flawed (peformance wise) remaster, and I'm the key demographic having played and absolutely loved the original.

 

[slothrop]

These games cost $60 because they don't have DLC, subscription on-ramps or any method to get more revenue in the backend. A $60 game today is the same as a $40 game inflation adjusted 20yrs ago -- the only reason we're still anchored to $60 is that big budget games have found ways to squeeze more revenue above the top line, plus they're often able to move copies in larger numbers due to a larger player base. Mid range single player releases get squeezed out a bit from these possibilities.

 

[SirNinja]

I absolutely cannot bring myself to pay $60 for it, given that I bought the original game at half that price almost thirty years ago.

Waiting for a big price drop seems unlikely too. Was hoping my library had it, but no luck there either. It would be a nice game to go back through again and complete over a weekend.

They didn't even bother to patch the glitchy framerate.

Click to shrink...

Was going to ask that. Sucks to hear.

 

[Deleted member 3017]

Give me more 12-15 hour experiences with no paid DLC for $60, please.

 

[Josh5890]

It was ok, not sure if worth $60 though. The performance issues didn't bother me at least.

I played it once, but I don't think I will ever revisit it.

 

[wrowa]

It's not really a price issue for me (because I'd feel the same regardless of price) but despite Link's Awakening being one of my all time favorites, the remake felt slightly unremarkable to me. It's gorgeous but other than that it doesn't really add much to make it stand out compared to the original. I will forever remember the original, but 10 years from now I might need to be reminded that it got a remake on Switch.

It's fine, though. But I would have preferred if this was a deal more similar to Link Between Worlds.

 

[Y2Kev]

Totally is worth it. It's an awesome game.

 

[Ultima_5]

im still disappointed they never fixed the frame rate issue.

 

[KalBalboa]

These games cost $60 because they don't have DLC, subscription on-ramps or any method to get more revenue in the backend. A $60 game today is the same as a $40 game inflation adjusted 20yrs ago -- the only reason we're still anchored to $60 is that big budget games have found ways to squeeze more revenue above the top line, plus they're often able to move copies in larger numbers due to a larger player base. Mid range single player releases get squeezed out a bit from these possibilities.

Click to shrink...

Sorta.

I can look at the Crash Trilogy/Spyro Trilogy and plenty of other stellar remakes this generation that all had much more content, better performance, and higher production values for $40 or less. Shadow of the Colossus, MediEvil, etc. No micro transactions or service-model means to make more money after the initial point of purchase.

 

[Aramon]

$60 for 15 hours seems like a fair value proposition to me tbh.

Click to shrink...

This. Some people paid 60$/€ for Resident Evil 3 Remake only for SP campaign and that lasts 6-8 hours.

 

[Goddo Hando]

dungeon creator was kinda half-baked. there was some real possibilities with it but they pulled it out of the oven a little too soon.

not asking for a zelda creator as that could be a stand-alone, but they could've added a little bit more oomph to it.
For a $60 price, i feel it's a fair ask

 

[TheIdiot]

I got my money's worth. It was the perfect length, and full of charm and quality. I also think it's definitely replayable. It's the type of game 3-4 years later when you've forgotten most of it that you may have an itch to play.

 

[Ashes of Dreams]

It's around the same length as other 2D Zelda games. The main story is maybe two or three hours shorter. But when you add in all the heart pieces, seashells, and trading quest, to do everything balances out to around the same time to do everything in A Link to the Past, A Link Between Worlds, The Minish Cap, or the Oracle games. There is not a lack of content. It's the same amount of content with the same length.

That said, I do think I understand why some people feel this way, and it comes from two things. The first is that the game is more simple. The map design, dungeons, and overall feel of the game makes it feel smaller and easier. Almost like you're playing a game designed to be "baby's first Zelda". The second thing is that we KNOW it's a remake of a GameBoy game, and that does inevitably color our expectations.

Personally, I think it's worth $60. Gave me a fun time for a decent amount of time. I wouldn't blame someone less in love with Zelda for hesitating though.

 

[etrain911]

I think addind a master mode or something like what BOTW got would've gone a long way to adding some replay value. I have to agree tho.

 

[Carassius Auratus]

I was sooo bummed when this turned out to be the rumored "thief" game and "new 2D Zelda" game. Now the wait continues for the second one.

They could have at least added a second quest and ironed out the performance issues. It's fundamentally a Game Boy game ffs Nintendo.

 

[Lockheartilly9799]

My mindset is different when it comes to the value of video games. As long as it's good, it can be a short game and I'm willing to pay $60. If it has no replay value then that makes it a tougher proposition for sure but I felt that Zelda: Link's Awakening does have replay value. I only haven't played it again due to my backlog.

 

[werezompire]

I loved Link's Awakening as a kid and was really excited when I heard the announcement because I was sure they'd add a Second Quest or some other big addition to justify its full price release. Was really disappointed that it was mostly just a fresh coat of paint and a basic dungeon editor that nobody seems to like much. Still haven't bought it because, well, I've already played the original several times.

 

[Kurekure Takora]

The remake was worth $50 for me without much bonus content, but the framerate still not being fixed is silly and a bad look on Nintendo.

 

[Friskykillface]

Tbh you could've bought it for $60 and sold it for $40-$50 since Nintendo games don't drop in price often
That's what I did

I never played the game boy/color version and this game lasted quite a while, had to use YouTube a few times too

 

[Odeko]

Sorta.

I can look at the Crash Trilogy/Spyro Trilogy and plenty of other stellar remakes this generation that all had much more content, better performance, and higher production values for $40 or less. Shadow of the Colossus, MediEvil, etc. No micro transactions or service-model means to make more money after the initial point of purchase.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to disagree that either MediEvil or SotC had more content than Link's Awakening, and I think it's a pretty fair fight between Link's Awakening and the Crash/Spryo trilogies. Those aren't terribly long games.

 

[AndrewGPK]

I had never played the original, so it was more than worth it for me. Loved the art style. I searched for everything, so it took me 20 hours. $3-4 an hour is not too bad, particularly when you factor in trade-in or replay/share with friends/family. I feel like with that art style its not going to look dated, somewhat future-proofed like Wind Waker.

I think its just something you can complain about for any Nintendo remake/remaster - they're gonna charge full price. The only way to have a say in that is not buying them, but plenty enough people do, so they're not gonna change.

 

[Biggersmaller]

I really enjoyed it and thought it was well worth the price. It helps that my Zelda-obsessed kids also played through it together. Kinda needed to see that this year.

 

[Deleted member 3017]

Sorta.

I can look at the Crash Trilogy/Spyro Trilogy and plenty of other stellar remakes this generation that all had much more content, better performance, and higher production values for $40 or less. Shadow of the Colossus, MediEvil, etc. No micro transactions or service-model means to make more money after the initial point of purchase.

Click to shrink...

That's nice for those games. Doesn't really take away from the idea that a complete 12-15 hour experience is worth $60 though. I completed REmake 2 in, like, seven hours and couldn't have been happier.... and that was $60. It's great when some publishers launch their games at a lower price, but I have never scoffed at a complete, satisfying experience being full price and I never will.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

For the 15-20 hours I got out of the game, I found it to be worth it because its still a genuinely great game and I haven't exhausted my enjoyment of the original game to begin with. It's not a massively long game or anything of the sort, but I'll still give it the same praise I'd give any comparable single player experience and like the overhaul they did still required a lot of work. Hell, I didn't even find the framerate issue to be that bad and am somewhat confused as to why people make such a big issue out of it. Like, it's an obvious flaw with the remake, but calling it unplayable on the basis of that feels like hyperbole.

Like I won't say it's now flawed or that it couldn't have included more content, but I feel satisfied with my time with the game for $60.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I disagree.

It is well worth the price. It is a beautiful remake of one of the greatest games ever released.

 

[Deleted member 10737]

i absolutely loved it and don't think it was lacking in content. if you go for a complete run, it's about 20 hours which is perfectly fine for a full price game. we got 5 or 6 hour games being sold at 60 bucks.
my only disappointment is they never bothered to fix the frame rate issues.

 

[skillzilla81]

For my money, a good 2D zelda game will always be worth 60 bucks, no matter the platform, length, or graphical performance.

 

[Belthazar90]

Yeah, the game not only lacks content to justify the pricetag but the performance is really poor too, so it also falters in the polish department. It should've been $40, but the userbase keeps enabling this kind of pricing for nintendo so... What can we do?

 

[Empyrean Cocytus]

It's really amazing to me that you can walk into a store, there's two Zelda games for the Switch, one of them has 100 times more content, and they both cost $60. Hell I think Breath of the Wild is $50 at some stores right now.

What disturbs me even more is that due to Link's Awakening's success, Grezzo is almost certainly working on remakes of Oracle of Ages/Seasons right now, and while they could fit both on a single Switch card with room to spare, they will likely be sold separately as $60 games.

 

[Asbsand]

All these "not enough stuff for 60 bucks" is the reason we have all these bloated Ubisoft-like games across all of AAA now. I wish more gamers were more conscious of the fact that part of what you pay for in tighter games is that level of pacing and polishing. RE3 had breakneck pacing, yet was only 6 hours long. Sure burned down my 60 bucks fast but didn't leave me in exhaustion like so many other games.

 

[Tochtli79]

I love LA and I was happy with the remake, but I agree that it could have used some extra content to add replayability. I also don't get why they cut the photograph sidequest from the DX version as it was a fun little thing that encouraged exploration.

 

[dedge]

I didn't mind paying $60 and had a blast with it while it lasted but it's definitely fair to say it would have been released at $40 on the competition/if it was third party. But Nintendo prices these things because people like me buy them at $60 so it's whatever really lol

 

[Piichan]

Agree with OP. Aside from the visuals and music, you might as well just play the GBC version. You'll spend way less and basically get the same experience.

 

[Odeko]

It's really amazing to me that you can walk into a store, there's two Zelda games for the Switch, one of them has 100 times more content, and they both cost $60. Hell I think Breath of the Wild is $50 at some stores right now.

What disturbs me even more is that due to Link's Awakening's success, Grezzo is almost certainly working on remakes of Oracle of Ages/Seasons right now, and while they could fit both on a single Switch card with room to spare, they will likely be sold separately as $60 games.

Click to shrink...

As they should, as they're both completely different games that are more than worth $60 each. Oracle of Ages is the best 2D Zelda game, if fucking Twilight Princess HD gets a full-price release then it should.

 

[BennyWhatever]

The original Link's Awakening is my favorite game of all time, so I was going to buy this no matter what. I did enjoy it.

That being said, I'd agree. If this wasn't a remake of my favorite game, I wouldn't have bought it at $60. I'd agree that it needed something else besides Hard Mode and the dungeon creator (which I didn't care for). A mirror mode / reworked dungeon mode would have been amazing. Something like a Master Quest.

 

[alr1ght]

It was a breath of fresh air in a sea of 30 hour games that should be 8-10. I enjoyed it the entire way through, which is something I can't say for BOTW.

 

[Biske]

Was well worth 60 bucks

 

[skillzilla81]

It's really amazing to me that you can walk into a store, there's two Zelda games for the Switch, one of them has 100 times more content, and they both cost $60. Hell I think Breath of the Wild is $50 at some stores right now.

What disturbs me even more is that due to Link's Awakening's success, Grezzo is almost certainly working on remakes of Oracle of Ages/Seasons right now, and while they could fit both on a single Switch card with room to spare, they will likely be sold separately as $60 games.

Click to shrink...

Will be 120 bucks well spent. Amazing games that I'll love to play again. BotW might have 1000 times more content, but none of it is awesome dungeons and puzzles I love from the franchise.

 

[Gold Arsene]

I don't think it's unreasonable to think a shot for shot remake of a freaking gameboy games costs the same as a AAA minline title is a bit much to swallow.

Like I feel like if Square did this for Dragon Quest 1 or something people wouldn't be so quick to defend it.

And understand I'm one of the biggest Zelda stans you'll find.

 

[Empyrean Cocytus]

As they should, as they're both completely different games that are more than worth $60 each. Oracle of Ages is the best 2D Zelda game, if fucking Twilight Princess HD gets a full-price release then it should.

Click to shrink...

I partially agree with you, though I prefer to think of both games as a singular experience. They were my favorite handheld Zeldas until Link Between Worlds came out.

Then again, if rumors are to be believed, Nintendo is remastering the entire Fire Emblem Fates collection into a single $60 package. So maybe Nintendo will put both titles into a single game.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

One of my favourite Zelda games, so totally worth the price for me.

 

[Timeaisis]

I thought the remake was pretty forgettable, to be honest. I mean, it was fine. But I agree not really worth $60. But it is what it is, I wanted to play Zelda that year.

 

[AaronMT]

A complaint about one and done is weird for a Zelda title. How often in Zelda games are you instantly replaying through the whole game again after completion? I can't think of any point in time I have ever done that with a Zelda game.

 

[Deleted member 17210]

I got it on a surprisingly good sale not long after release (at Staples, $55 CAD for a physical copy) so I was happy. I would have liked for it to launch at a lower price than it did but the market has unfortunately shown that Nintendo can get away with it. It has nothing to do with lacking microtransactions or any other bullshit excuse.

 

[gravitationsfeld]

The perf is unforgivable

 

[QuigleyMcShine]

It's a great Zelda game with 8 dungeons. I didn't mind the price.

 

[Redcrayon]

Some of my favourite Game Boy games were ones I could play through in under half an hour, and they still costed £25 in the early 90s. I really don't mind paying full price for a game with a running time of a couple of afternoons, as to be honest the majority of games these days just feel bloated with endless sub-systems and running across maps and mini-games and indulgent cut-scenes. It's not a perfect game, but it's a very good one, that doesn't waste the player's time.

That it's piss-easy is also perhaps more that people on games forums that have been playing games for decades and another dozen Zelda games since really aren't going to find much challenge in something that draws its puzzles and combat as a very cut down version of LTTP. There are new young players joining the hobby all the time, and I bet lots of them have been stumped on the puzzles in the later dungeons.

In the same way, my daughter loves games that only use a few buttons, whereas the extra couple added to each successive generation have ended up as a bit (although clearly not insurmountable) of a barrier to entry for some new players. Hell, when I started out we had one button and a stick and that was it :D