>>116
>>118
I didn't find it necessary to use a guide or keep a map for the original game. I did end up brute-forcing many secrets by bombing random walls and burning random bushes, but anything more difficult than that (e.g. Lost Woods navigation) has an NPC hint giving it away. The poorly translated nonsense hints ("TENTH ENEMY HAS THE BOMB") tend to be nonessential. I never found the magic key, though, so I ended up grinding rupees to buy keys from the shops for the final level.
The only other Zelda game I've played through is Link to the Past, and that one is much more straightforward in comparison. However, I find the puzzles to be more clever, as well. They follow a logical structure instead of being obscure and random. Earlier in this thread, it was said that modern games are not enjoyable because they are casualized, but I think some of the most successful and enduring retro games are the ones that take an existing formula and make it easier and more user-friendly. This is also the case with Super Metroid, which is an incredibly easy game, yet is often considered the peak of the series.
What makes these games different from casualized modern games is that they don't rely on removing depth to increase accessibility. Hardcore fans like them because they are still legitimately well-designed and complex, while other people find them approachable because they take steps to avoid frustrating players.
I think the decline in the difficulty of modern games has been accompanied by an increase in lazy game design, such as QTEs, borderline automated combat systems, and open-world filler, so people conflate lower difficulty with terrible games. It's true that the worst modern games are easy, but not that it's inherently bad for a game to be easy as long as it is made with care and skill.