The Legend of Zelda Series

[talonmalon333]

OK, Talon, I'll give you a chance. State your reasons. What makes LA more creative, unique, and more well designed than either of those games?

Well I prefer the story, dungeons, pacing, and world better in LA. But my main point with that post was that many people who love LA, such as myself, aren't just tied down by nostalgia. There are reasons to prefer LA, just as I'm sure you have your reasons to prefer OoS and OoA... I believe it's a fine game that's aged very well. The OoX games are also great, but there are a few points, mostly in OoA, that slightly bored me (for example, to me it feels like the game just comes to a halt when Link gets washed up on an island and has to get his items back from those creatures). I'm currently in the process of replaying them though, so my opinion may change.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Well I prefer the story

You mean the bare-bones story that is in just about every Zelda game. OK, I don't see what makes it special, and the twist that its all a dream doesn't help it much, but fair enough if that's your opinion.

dungeons, pacing, and world better in LA.

You're going to have to elaborate on that.  How exactly is it better? The dungeons in LA felt very basic to me. You had block puzzles, turn-styles, and a lot of tropes that the series is known for. All of that stuff was in the Oracle games as well, but they also had so much more creativity. They actually did 2D segments really well for the first time (you know, as in better than AoL), and stuff like the magnetic gloves made for some really creative platforming segments. And remember the light and dark world concept of ALTTP? Ages had its equivalent of that with the past and present, and Seasons actually even doubled that with the 4 seasons, all of which are substantially different environments from one another, which really shows the amount of effort the level designers put into making those games. The worlds in the Oracle games just felt like they had so much more to offer. Also, I can't think of a 2D Zelda game with more perfect pacing than the Oracle games. Maybe ALTTP is just as good, but I don't see how it could be any better. The Oracle games literally wasted none of your time. There were side-quests in between dungeons, but they were of course optional, and those games never bogged you down with a ton of trivial tasks or boring fetch quests in between main dungeons. If you were really centered on going to the next main dungeon, you could do so after a few clear and simple tasks were performed, which themselves were interesting since they played to the series' strenghts in the form of puzzles or fun mini-games. If you wanted to have some fun before going to the next dungeon and do some other stuff, then the game had plenty of side-quests for you to take part in before you were ready to move on.

But my main point with that post was that many people who love LA, such as myself, aren't just tied down by nostalgia. There are reasons to prefer LA, just as I'm sure you have your reasons to prefer OoS and OoA... I believe it's a fine game that's aged very well. The OoX games are also great, but there are a few points, mostly in OoA, that slightly bored me (for example, to me it feels like the game just comes to a halt when Link gets washed up on an island and has to get his items back from those creatures). I'm currently in the process of replaying them though, so my opinion may change.

That part where Link gets washed up and has to regain his items only drags if you aren't very good at playing a Zelda game to begin with. It doesn't take that long to pass it if you know what you're doing. Which is to say, even if its you're first time playing the game, if you get how a Zelda game works, how to use clues, solve puzzles, and talk to the right people and such, then regaining your items at that part doesn't take more than 15 minutes.

As for LA, I never implied myself that it was a product of nostalgia. I did say that I respect the game. I just couldn't really get into it, personally.

[talonmalon333]

As for LA, I never implied myself that it was a product of nostalgia. I did say that I respect the game. I just couldn't really get into it, personally.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted your post, then. But as for my thoughts...

You mean the bare-bones story that is in just about every Zelda game. OK, I don't see what makes it special, and the twist that its all a dream doesn't help it much, but fair enough if that's your opinion.

The fact that it's a dream is what makes the story. Especially the entire ending, where the only way for Link to escape the island is to completely erase it, and all its people, including Marin. For a video game, and a Zelda game especially, it's pretty heavy, probably only second to WW's ending at that.

But I do have to say, in my current replay of OoA, storywise, the Symmetry City portion is pretty effective.

You're going to have to elaborate on that.  How exactly is it better? The dungeons in LA felt very basic to me. You had block puzzles, turn-styles, and a lot of tropes that the series is known for. All of that stuff was in the Oracle games as well, but they also had so much more creativity. They actually did 2D segments really well for the first time (you know, as in better than AoL), and stuff like the magnetic gloves made for some really creative platforming segments. And remember the light and dark world concept of ALTTP? Ages had its equivalent of that with the past and present, and Seasons actually even doubled that with the 4 seasons, all of which are substantially different environments from one another, which really shows the amount of effort the level designers put into making those games. The worlds in the Oracle games just felt like they had so much more to offer. Also, I can't think of a 2D Zelda game with more perfect pacing than the Oracle games. Maybe ALTTP is just as good, but I don't see how it could be any better. The Oracle games literally wasted none of your time. There were side-quests in between dungeons, but they were of course optional, and those games never bogged you down with a ton of trivial tasks or boring fetch quests in between main dungeons. If you were really centered on going to the next main dungeon, you could do so after a few clear and simple tasks were performed, which themselves were interesting since they played to the series' strenghts in the form of puzzles or fun mini-games. If you wanted to have some fun before going to the next dungeon and do some other stuff, then the game had plenty of side-quests for you to take part in before you were ready to move on.

Dungeons: I'm now in the middle of OoA. And at least for this game, now that I've gotten this far, I might agree with you. The dungeons in this game are pretty great. Once I get to OoS I'll decide how it compares.

Pacing: The idea of having control over time and seasons is cool, but it also involves backtracking which slows things down a bit for me. But putting those aside, they still have more backtracking than LA, which barely had any at all. For example, before getting to Symmetry City in OoA, you gotta find carpenters to build a bridge to get in, which is alright. But before you can even do that, you gotta go back to a forest to save the kangaroo in order to help you save the carpenters. It's practically a fetchquest within a fetchquest.

That part where Link gets washed up and has to regain his items only drags if you aren't very good at playing a Zelda game to begin with. It doesn't take that long to pass it if you know what you're doing. Which is to say, even if its you're first time playing the game, if you get how a Zelda game works, how to use clues, solve puzzles, and talk to the right people and such, then regaining your items at that part doesn't take more than 15 minutes.

I just did it a day or two ago, and I found it to be kind of boring and not really hard.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I like LA because it's 100% classic no-frills Zelda. There are no gimmicks, no padding, and it flows very well from point to point. It's probably the most fun Zelda for me to just pick up and play whenever. IMO, that might be why so many people like it.

[talonmalon333]

I like LA because it's 100% classic no-frills Zelda. There are no gimmicks, no padding, and it flows very well from point to point. It's probably the most fun Zelda for me to just pick up and play whenever. IMO, that might be why so many people like it.

This sums it up. LA is proof that a Zelda game can be different, without going into gimmick territory.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Pacing: The idea of having control over time and seasons is cool, but it also involves backtracking which slows things down a bit for me. But putting those aside, they still have more backtracking than LA, which barely had any at all. For example, before getting to Symmetry City in OoA, you gotta find carpenters to build a bridge to get in, which is alright. But before you can even do that, you gotta go back to a forest to save the kangaroo in order to help you save the carpenters. It's practically a fetchquest within a fetchquest.

That's not a fetch-quest. What you call back-tracking is in every Zelda game, including LA. I don't know how you're giving that game the slip here, but it definitely required you to go back to areas you had already visited on more than just a few occasions. What makes it work in good Zelda games is how they alter things up when you revisit an area. You're talking about the Oracle games having fetch-quests, but I couldn't disagree more, because most of the time its doing what Zelda does best and having you overcome obstacles. You go back to certain areas but in each game whenever you do that you do it under different conditions (either in the past or present or during different seasons). So its not like you're playing the same area twice, because everything changes on you're second visit, including the environment and enemies. If you'd still hold back-tracking against these games, then you'd have to hold it against every Zelda game because I don't know that I've played any other Zelda game as diverse as these 2, personally.

I just did it a day or two ago, and I found it to be kind of boring and not really hard.

You see. You just admitted that its not hard. In which case it shouldn't have taken you more than 10+ minutes to get past that part (that's how long it took me). You're really going to single out 10-minutes worth of gameplay and use it as an argument against the quality of an entire game?

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

This sums it up. LA is proof that a Zelda game can be different, without going into gimmick territory.

You guys are using gimmick as a bad word here. Almost every Zelda game aside from the original has gimmicks. But gimmicks aren't inherently a bad thing. In the Zelda games they are used as entire gameplay elements to formulate the main concept of how to traverse the game, adding a unique flavor to each game without making them any more shallow or complex. To me, Link's Awakening honestly feels kind of boring. It has basic puzzles that I've seen done in other Zelda games, it has very basic combat which is once again no better than in any other 2D Zelda game, and....that's kind of it. I just don't see what it does "better" than other 2D Zelda games, but I guess I'm just missing something here.

[Spark Of Spirit]

That would be implying I think the Dark World, Shrinking, Sailing, Time, and Season gimmicks are bad. I don't! 

But sometimes I don't want to deal with that stuff, so I pop in Link's Awakening and have a ball with a simple and tight action adventure. Just 8 dungeons, a sword and feather, and an owl giving you hints. Yeah the dungeons are simple, but I like that they are. It's a simpler and more straightforward Zelda than any of the others, and sometimes that's what I want to play.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Fair enough. I can understand that point.

That would be implying I think the Dark World, Shrinking, Sailing, Time, and Season gimmicks are bad. I don't! 

Wait a minute, are you referring to The Wind Waker's sailing gimmick? I know Talon and myself like the sailing, but I thought you HATED that gimmick.

[talonmalon333]

That's not a fetch-quest. What you call back-tracking is in every Zelda game, including LA. I don't know how you're giving that game the slip here, but it definitely required you to go back to areas you had already visited on more than just a few occasions. What makes it work in good Zelda games is how they alter things up when you revisit an area. You're talking about the Oracle games having fetch-quests, but I couldn't disagree more, because most of the time its doing what Zelda does bests and having you overcome obstacles. You go back to certain areas but in each game whenever you do that you do it under different conditions (either in the past or present or during different seasons). So its not like you're playing the same area twice, because everything changes on you're second visit, including the environment and enemies. If you'd still hold back-tracking against these games, then you'd have to hold it against every Zelda game because I don't know that I've played any other Zelda game as diverse as these 2, personally.

You see. You just admitted that its not hard. In which case it shouldn't have taken you more than 10+ minutes to get past that part (that's how long it took me). You're really going to single out 10-minutes worth of gameplay and use it as an argument against the quality of an entire game?

I do hold back-tracking against most Zelda games. Too many of them, with SS being the worst offender, use it to extent game length. OoX wasn't nearly as bad as some other games, but there were still those moments that were just tedious to me. The island section of getting back your equipment might've only been about 20 minutes, but things like that add up. LA had very little of this, if any at all.

I typically cite OoT as a Zelda with perfect pacing, just for future reference.

You guys are using gimmick as a bad word here. Almost every Zelda game aside from the original has gimmicks. But gimmicks aren't inherently a bad thing. In the Zelda games they are used as entire gameplay elements to formulate the main concept of how to traverse the game, adding a unique flavor to each game without making them any more shallow or complex. To me, Link's Awakening honestly feels kind of boring. It has basic puzzles that I've seen done in other Zelda games, it has very basic combat which is once again no better than in any other 2D Zelda game, and....that's kind of it. I just don't see what it does "better" than other 2D Zelda games, but I guess I'm just missing something here.

AoL really didn't have any gimmicks. As different as it was, it was also made in a time when sequels were rare... I might also argue that OoT and TP didn't have any gimmicks. Especially OoT, as the time traveling aspect of the game was just different ways of playing the game traditionally. It didn't really change up the gameplay much at all.

As for the rest, Spark summed it up perfectly.

Wait a minute, are you referring to The Wind Waker's sailing gimmick? I know Talon and myself like the sailing, but I thought you HATED that gimmick.

Maybe he meant PH's sailing.

[Spark Of Spirit]

AoL needs a full scale ground up remake. A 2D platformer Zelda could be a great thing, if only it just wasn't so haphazardly put together.

Fair enough. I can understand that point.

That would be implying I think the Dark World, Shrinking, Sailing, Time, and Season gimmicks are bad. I don't! 

Wait a minute, are you referring to The Wind Waker's sailing gimmick? I know Talon and myself like the sailing, but I thought you HATED that gimmick.

I hate the Triforce hunt. The actual sailing I don't have much issue with, I like the scale it gives to the world.

[Foggle]

I hate the Triforce hunt. The actual sailing I don't have much issue with, I like the scale it gives to the world.

I feel the same way. I absolutely love the sailing, but I really do hate the Triforce hunt.

[talonmalon333]

AoL needs a full scale ground up remake. A 2D platformer Zelda could be a great thing, if only it just wasn't so haphazardly put together.

I'd be fine with an AoL remake if they update the graphics and balance it out. The challenge really doesn't need to be nerfed, but the game could send you back to temple entrances upon getting Game Overs, rather than forcing you to start from the beginning.

Could be a good WiiWare (WiiUWare?) title?

I hate the Triforce hunt. The actual sailing I don't have much issue with, I like the scale it gives to the world.

As EK mentioned, I do love the sailing (though I can agree that they could've shortened the size of the ocean, to please everyone). But I have mixed feelings about the Triforce hunt. I love exploring the islands and finding the charts. But I don't enjoy having the charts deciphered, and then having to pull up the chests. I'd prefer them to simply hide the Triforce pieces in place of the charts.

[talonmalon333]

As for the reboot idea, to be honest, I'm in favor of it. I'd like to see Zelda let go of all the conventions it has picked up over the years. Besides, I think Hyrule kind of sucks. There's far too many races with not enough depth, the history is cheesy and repetitive, the lore just isn't that interesting.

[talonmalon333]

After playing the OoX games for the first time in a while, I can do accurate rankings for the series.

MM > OoT = TP > WW > ALttP = LA > SS > LoZ > AoL > OoA > OoS > ST > MC > PH > FSA > FS