The Legend of Zelda Series

[Spark Of Spirit]

I like pretty much all the styles, but after I played OoT, neither of the other two really held my attention and I sort of drifted away from them. I never finished either because I just plain lost interest. Majora's Mask hooked me because I had no idea what was going on, and Wind Waker caught me off guard because of the scope (making the world big without complicating it up was a huge deal to me) and it gave me the same punch as the first time I played the 2D games and the first time I played OoT. If anyone is complaining about Zelda feeling stale it's probably because the last two console games were basically more refined OoT style games. We're about due for something different there.

As for the portables... Classic 2D. This is a no-brainer. The PH style games were not what people wanted, and we've been denied an old school Zelda for so long (As I said, the last one was on the GBA!) while Mario, Kirby, and Donkey Kong are getting classic style games. It just isn't fair.

Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention the Four Swords games. A new Four Swords Adventure game like the Gamecube one would be awesome. those games are more arcade-style action games mixed with Zelda, but they're pretty great in their own right.

[Rynnec]

I wouldn't be suprised if Nintendo released a new 2D-style Zelda this year. That's a truckload of money waiting to be made.

Anyway, I still haven't played much of Skyward Sword yet (too busy with other games), but maybe I'll get back to it once I'm finished with my second No More Heroes playthrough.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Four Swords would be great for me if I could actually find friends to play them with.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Four Swords would be great for me if I could actually find friends to play them with.

I actually played through with two of my friends who had GBAs. We never ended up finishing the game because of the fights that would ensue over stupid things like who would pull what switch. This never happened when we played Crystal Chronicles, PSO, Left 4 Dead, or any other co-op game. Just this one for some reason.

But I can imagine it would work better now with a 3DS system where the GBA can use the bottom screen and the Gamecube the top instead of having to wrangle GBAs and link cables... and hopefully online co-op.

[talonmalon333]

The thing about Zelda is, as much as I love the series, they rarely improve on what they made with OoT. Really, TP was the only one that did. It was the perfect progression. MM, WW, and SS were more focused on (for lack of a better term) gimmicks... This is barely even an opinion either. The facts can be seen in the success of these games. OoT and TP were overwhelmingly acclaimed. MM and WW just didn't resonate with people, and what you guys may not know is that SS flopped, pretty badly. People want progression, not reinvention. Just look at the success of Mario and Pokemon.

And in case anyone is curious, no I'm not recommending "REHASH, REHASH!!!!!!!". Games can still have their own identity while sticking to the main formula. Link's Awakening, for example.

So from an objective point of view, what Zelda really needs is a TP sequel featuring the Wii U tablet.



Cause while I loved MM, SS, and WW, the developers shouldn't just keep introducing new art styles and whatnot. It'll just divide the fanbase yet again.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Skyward Sword was technically a Twilight Princess sequel. Just like OoT it had the "multiple level/worlds" gimmick, the eight main dungeons, and most of the same story beats. I really don't know how SS could be more like TP without copping the same exact art style.

What I would love is a Zelda game that gets you started into the gameplay fast. Link's Awakening, the first thing you do is go get your sword, for instance. A Link To The Past, you get a sword from your uncle and there you are. Wind Waker was a bit better about this, but most non-2D Zelda games take too long to get to the main story. I think it's really the shell that people are tired of. The dungeons and general gameplay is still great (SS even introduced some cool items), but there's a lot of needless clutter in there. A Zelda game just needs things like a bow and arrow, bombs, hookshot, something like the leaf from WW, and something like the scarab from SS along with the standard sword and shield. Most of the other items are completely situational and are mostly a waste. Heck, give me Roc's Feather and I'll never use anything else.

Also, I could really do without the "Navi style" companions. They're completely unnecessary. Something like the phone in LA would be much preferred.

Make a Zelda game that throws you into the action, put out a slightly different style of story like Wind Waker or Majora's Mask, tone down the gimmick items, and keep it simple. Zelda doesn't need reinvention or rehash, it just needs to keep it simple. What needs to go is the "multiple world" thing they've been milking in most 3D Zelda games since ALTTP.

[talonmalon333]

Skyward Sword was technically a Twilight Princess sequel. Just like OoT it had the "multiple level/worlds" gimmick, the eight main dungeons, and most of the same story beats. I really don't know how SS could be more like TP without copping the same exact art style.

It was made around a completely new control scheme. That's a pretty big deal.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Skyward Sword was technically a Twilight Princess sequel. Just like OoT it had the "multiple level/worlds" gimmick, the eight main dungeons, and most of the same story beats. I really don't know how SS could be more like TP without copping the same exact art style.

It was made around a completely new control scheme. That's a pretty big deal.

Well, yeah that changed the controls. But it didn't really have much to do with changing anything in the actual game. You still use a sword and shield, you still go to 8 dungeons, you still have a useless helper that never shuts up, and you still get a ton of items you'll never use more than a few times. And it still takes WAY too long to get into the main game.

[talonmalon333]

Skyward Sword was technically a Twilight Princess sequel. Just like OoT it had the "multiple level/worlds" gimmick, the eight main dungeons, and most of the same story beats. I really don't know how SS could be more like TP without copping the same exact art style.

It was made around a completely new control scheme. That's a pretty big deal.

Well, yeah that changed the controls. But it didn't really have much to do with changing anything in the actual game. You still use a sword and shield, you still go to 8 dungeons, you still have a useless helper that never shuts up, and you still get a ton of items you'll never use more than a few times. And it still takes WAY too long to get into the main game.

It's not just. The game is designed entirely around the control scheme. The puzzles, enemies, bosses, a whole lot, really.

I like it slightly more than TP. But I actually think TP is more polished and less flawed.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I don't know where you heard that MM and WW didn't resonate with people, because they both got great reception from critics and a ton of Zelda fans love MM and WW. Are they as popular as OoT or TP, no, but they are still games that were generally well received and I have encountered many people who consider each of those respective games their personal favorites in the Zelda series.

Also, following the OoT formula is what SS got most criticized for by most critics. They said it didn't take many measure to evolve itself from such an old formula and therefore didn't feel as fresh as some of the previous 3D Zelda games, and those games were actually praised and well-liked BECAUSE of their gimmicks, since it let them stand alone as great games and did unique and interesting stuff with the established formula rather than follow it to the letter, which made those games much less predictable and gave them a very fresh sort of feeling.

Now, I'm a huge fan of OoT's style so I don't mind a few rehashes because its honestly a great formula. One thing that REALLY bugs me is when people who don't like the new games sticking to that formula consider those games lazily designed. Sticking to a tried and true formula to play it safe is one thing and I can understand and even agree with that criticism, but by no means do any of the newer 3D Zelda games come off as lazy to me. I haven't played them, sure, but I have seen tons of footage of them being played and have watched friends play various chunks of TP back when that came out, and the puzzles and level designs are full of creativity and great ideas. So really, its not like Nintendo has been dropping the ball on actual quality when it comes to newer Zelda games. Its more like they are just playing it a little to safe and staying close to a rather predictable and old formula.

[talonmalon333]

I don't know where you heard that MM and WW didn't resonate with people, because they both got great reception from critics and a ton of Zelda fans love MM and WW. Are they as popular as OoT or TP, no, but they are still games that were generally well received and I have encountered many people who consider each of those respective games their personal favorites in the Zelda series.

Also, following the OoT formula is what SS got most criticized for by most critics. They said it didn't take many measure to evolve itself from such an old formula and therefore didn't feel as fresh as some of the previous 3D Zelda games, and those games were actually praised and well-liked BECAUSE of their gimmicks, since it let them stand alone as great games and did unique and interesting stuff with the established formula rather than follow it to the letter, which made those games much less predictable and gave them a very fresh sort of feeling.

Now, I'm a huge fan of OoT's style so I don't mind a few rehashes because its honestly a great formula. One thing that REALLY bugs me is when people who don't like the new games sticking to that formula consider those games lazily designed. Sticking to a tried and true formula to play it safe is one thing and I can understand and even agree with that criticism, but by no means do any of the newer 3D Zelda games come off as lazy to me. I haven't played them, sure, but I have seen tons of footage of them being played and have watched friends play various chunks of TP back when that came out, and the puzzles and level designs are full of creativity and great ideas. So really, its not like Nintendo has been dropping the ball on actual quality when it comes to newer Zelda games. Its more like they are just playing it a little to safe and staying close to a rather predictable and old formula.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the new 3D games. I still love them personally. But it's indeed a fact that people haven't been as big fan of some of them (though like you said, they were still very well received, but that's largely cause they have "Zelda" in their title). People didn't like the time mechanics of MM, the frequent use of sailing in WW, and the control scheme of SS (which, despite what you may think, I've heard dozens of complaints about (I'm a staff member on a Zelda site, so I hear a bit more. )).

I agree that rehashes aren't the best idea. But I do think the best idea is to find a middle ground between reusing ideas and coming up with new ones. Mario, for example, doesn't just rehash things except for plot. With him they come up with new ideas, but those ideas do more of a job of complimenting what already makes Mario fantastic.

Like I said though, I still love those games, and as you know, MM is my favorite in the series. I'm just speaking on info I've gained from fans.

[talonmalon333]

By the way, have anyone heard the 25th anniversary orchestrated tracks? They're brilliant. This one, TP one, makes me feel bad that they decided against orchestration in that game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKhLkgqEFZM

[Spark Of Spirit]

I just popped in Wind Waker and it took me 20 minutes to get to the first dungeon. There were tutorials, but all but the short combat one and platforming one were optional and skippable. I really don't understand why other Zelda games can't do this at the start, too? There was no reason for TP or SS to take 4 times as long to accomplish the same thing.

Anyway, I started it and worked my way through the first dungeon and I think I'll start a replay of it. It's been long enough since my save deletion and it hooked me a lot faster than SS did.

Toon Link is still awesome.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

By first dungeon do you mean the fortress where Toon Link's sister is being held? Because I don't really count that as a true dungeon, and even if it is I kind of found that part to be a little slow since you had to be stealthy being that you didn't have weapons on you for a portion of that area. Well, maybe my memory is foggy on WW but that's what I remember coming first. I do think that the game is pretty awesome, though, and it doesn't take too long to get invested in the deep exploration and awesome dungeons that the game has to offer. That said, while I myself am the type of gamer who hates games that take way too long to get you into the action (which is the main reason for why I can't get into most RPGs), I never really minded it too much in Zelda games. It does a good job of building up the characters and world around you, and its one of the few games where I'm actually somewhat interested in the story, so I don't mind the whole first hour full of exposition thing that most 3D Zelda games having going on. I do agree that its better to get you into the action as quickly as possible, though.

[talonmalon333]

I think SS especially did a good job with it's "slow start". It just does so well establishing the relationship between Link and Zelda. Like, so good that when that moment I knew it was going to end (I recognized it from E3), I just wished it would last forever.

/corneyness