PC-88 Action RPG Hydlide Ventures Onto Nintendo Switch On December 21st

Would love to play the Saturn version with more that 1fps

Hydlide is a pioneer, but it's also one of the worst videogames of all time. I just thought that might be worth pointing out.

@TheWingedAvenger Well, we won't be able to see you make a better video game in 1984.
I wonder if part of the reason it is so disliked is that it was simply introduced too late to the western marketplace (not seeing the 1986 Famicom port, released a month after the FDS and Zelda, until 1989 when it had well been surpassed by more contemporary games).

Jim the Knight - killed by bees.

So I am guessing this version doesn't include the Indiana Jones-like music like the version on NES.

Ugh, HYDLIDE.

Just saying the name gives you a gag reflex like you're about to puke.

HYDLIDE.

Sounds so wretched and foul.

I remember watching projared play this on yotube, the game is bad but the video is hilarious lol.

How could you forget Super Hydlide, the MegaDrive remake?

I still have the NES and Genesis ports.

I agree with @KingMike that the game doesn't get appreciated because few know that it was an NES port of a game that predates even the first Zelda. A similar situation is Ultima Exodus on the NES.

Maybe some of you won't love these games more than the original Zelda or Dragon Quest/Warrior, for example, but it's important people know the history before passing judgement. Those game may not exist if it wasn't for the Hydlides and Ultimas that paved the way.

The very original Hydlide definitely deserves more appreciation than it gets, all thanks to the barebones (yet disappointing) NES port. Yes it's grindy and opaque, but that's what Japanese players wanted in 1984: a more open-world take on Tower of Druaga with secrets and puzzles galore.

You're also not getting the forced Indiana Jones music in this version, for what it's worth. I think that's honestly an upgrade.

@KingMike
Your reservations make no sense. Nintendo released Super Mario Bros in 1985, and then a year later put out a port of Mario Bros for their home console. Everyone loved it, because it was good. The fact that it was released a full year after its far more advanced, side-scrolling sequel didn't impact people's opinion. A good game is a good game, no matter when it was released.
If you play Hylide in the present day and you have fun, then it's a good game. Is that what happens though? I find it hard to believe that anyone actually enjoys Hydlide. I've never heard anyone say they liked it.
I play Dragon Buster (1984) nowadays, and I have fun with it. Like Hydlide, Dragon Buster is a forefather of the action-RPG genre, but it's actually a good game in addition to being innovative.
I don't understand why some people feel the urge to defend Hydlide when it's utterly atrocious from every standpoint.

@PasokonDeacon
Hydlide sold pretty well in Japan, and it's for the reason you stated: Japanese players back then were masochistic. But wherever else the game went, it was given the cold shoulder, because it's just no fun.
If you ask 100 gamers whether they'd rather play Hylide (1984) or Adventure (1980), I'm pretty sure all 100 would pick the primitive Atari 2600 game. Both games were forefathers of the action-RPG genre, but only one is fun and has stood the test of time.

@TheWingedAvenger If you asked random gamers on forums, imageboards, etc. if they'd rather play Hydlide or Adventure, most wouldn't even know enough to answer before consulting Google. Neither game's as fun as they can be without some kind of guide; anyone playing the original Zelda today without its manual might also call it unintuitive junk. I've had fun with both games you mentioned for reasons similar and different, but it took some effort on my part to understand them. As for "wherever else the game went", we really don't have enough scientific studies to prove or disprove that claim. People who laugh at Hydlide whenever they watch an angry gamer critic video likely weren't ever going to play it seriously, either.

Mario Bros. may be likable, but it's also seen as a Golden Age Arcade Game, meaning players expect it to be simpler, harder, and less accommodating than early NES titles. There's a more accurate public image of what the game's trying to be; Hydlide's never had anything like that. That's why I recommend a spiritual successor like Fairune instead, knowing how much it stays true to 1984 but with modern quality-of-life design. It's hardly as if masochistic and/or highly investigative players ceased to exist going into the 2000s—many of them ended up playing MMOs and then Souls-likes instead of classic ARPGs. Then and now, certain genres appealed most when advertised well and when they reached the kinds of players most receptive to their systems.

I'm already seeing younger Japanese users on Twitter completing EGGCONSOLE's Hydlide release, and most seem pleased with what they played. Maybe they're going all old-school, no saves or guides allowed, or using every internet-age tool we've got, but I see these patterns with anyone trying Atari 2600 legends like Adventure or Pitfall. Context is everything, and even good games suffer during a lack of it. I see a lot of people rag on the original Dragon Buster these days, so it's lucky that Hydlide's more visible and takes even more of the punishment, warranted or not.

@TheWingedAvenger Hydlide has less to go by when it was released, so it is a little understandable it would be less enjoyable. I'm not saying it's a game I personally enjoyed during my one attempt, but I can at least try to understand what it was going for.
Also, that Mario Bros. port you speak was made two years before Super Mario Bros.
They are also two very different games.
(and I'd rather play the updated port of Mario Bros., the 1993 "Classic Serie" version released only in Europe, and previously on the FDS with a bunch of weird promo stuff, which added the SMB jump mechanics that while less arcade accurate, is more fun to play)

Dragon Buster also is more of a side-scroller hack-and-slash game that I also wouldn't consider a comparable game, even though, yes, there wasn't as much like it then (I haven't played the Famicom port enough to know if its apparent changed mechanics, ie items, change enough).
Did you mean to argue about Dragon Slayer, a game more clearly relevant to this discussion also released in 1984? I've watched a streamer play a few runs of that, literally hours trying to grind out a win in what I've been told is but a single level of the game.

@KingMike
Good point: Dragon Slayer is a perfect example of a precursor to action-RPGs which simply isn't worth playing. So it's like Hydlide. These games were never good.
Dragon Slayer II: Xanadu, on the other hand, was a good game and still is. That was a forefather to the genre, but an actually good game.
Dragon Buster was Zelda II but in 1984. Of course it was far more primitive, but it was and still is fun. It's a precursor, and like the other precursors, we can't really consider them action-RPGs. But they contains elements of the genre that led to the greatest games.
My mention of Mario Bros was to show how an old, primitive game can be enjoyed even when released after a similar but more advanced game (Super Mario Bros), as opposed to Hydlide which was only ridiculed when it came out after Zelda. So the fact that it was made in 1983 only strengthens my point.
But the best example is Adventure for the humble Atari 2600. The quality of that game and its 1980 release date makes Hydlide's inferiority unforgivable.

@PasokonDeacon
You're right, most gamers today don't know Hydlide and Adventure because they haven't played them. But the ones who have played them will tell you which one they prefer, and I guarantee you that most people who play Adventure and don't have ADD will tell you they like it, while virtually no one likes Hydlide.
And again, you're right: context matters. I beat Adventure, Zelda and Zelda II before I even reached my teenage years, and I suppose we could attribute that to the fact that back then I used to get a new game every month, so I had every reason to stick with a game until I'd beaten it. Nowadays kids watch a video review from the most popular youtubers and either decide not to play the game at all or give up after the first "difficulty".
It's pretty obvious that most youtubers review games after playing for only a few minutes. They also copy each other, so the videos are all the same and all full of the same mistakes. For example, there's the myth that Zelda contains lots of stuff in "hidden" rooms, and that it was unreasonable for Miyamoto to expect players to go around bombing every wall and burning every bush in the overworld. Now, people who have actually played Zelda are aware that you don't need to do any of that, because all those items are inessential, and hardly even useful. In fact, the game is not difficult. And no, I didn't have Nintendo Power and none of my friends helped me. It's just not a hard game. The thing is, today kids have the choice bewteen Zelda 1 and Tears of the Kingdom. Of course 99% of them will find any excuse to play the latter. Just like most movie-lovers today would rather watch Interstellar than The Day The Earth Stood Still. Production value matters a lot to the masses.
I was six years old when I beat Adventure on the Atari 2600 on all three difficulty levels. It was my favorite game, so I spent a couple of days trying to beat it. It is absolutely ridiculous to say the game is hard. Mind you, you don't need to get the Easter egg in order to beat the game. I'm sure lots of gamers who watched Steven Spielberg's Ready Player One believe Adventure is super hard and that the Easter Egg is a crucial part of the game. But the key here is whether a person has actually played a game for more than two minutes.
I think Adventure gets ignored by gamers because a lot of kids and even adults would simply rather play Skyrim than a primitive game from 1980. So they say a lot of inaccurate things about the old game because they haven't given it more than two minutes. "Oh, it's too hard and cryptic." No, little kids beat these games easily back in the early 80s. That's a verifiable fact: just ask people who were born in the late 70s and early 80s.

@TheWingedAvenger Reviewing games after playing for only a few minutes? It's been pointed out the GamePro review for EarthBound doesn't sound like they played beyond the Onett segment. They went to give it pretty bad ratings (not everyone has to like the game, but the point above). The magazine right (can't recall if it was the same editor or not, though from what I heard, the magazine had only a few editors who used multiple aliases) after gave Tecmo Secret of the Stars high ratings (I like that game for some reason but even I couldn't give it better than a firmly mediocre rating).
Still the best case for, when someone spotted the earliest EGM issues might have been shilling for FCI (the North American arm of shovelware publisher Pony Canyon), due to them sharing office space if the editors weren't moonlighting as FCI's customer service, is when one of the editors simply said of Hydlide "I don't know what this game is." and gave it a 6/10.