The Legend of Zelda Series

[Spark Of Spirit]

Is Zelda really getting that much worse? I mean, I know that quite a few people were disappointed with Skyward Sword, but everyone and their mother seemed to love all of the console Zelda games that came before it, and the 2D and handheld entries have always done pretty well for the series (not to mention that we are getting a new one). Is this really what gamers have come to? Just one less than stellar game in the series means that it has hit the shitter?

From what I can tell, this guy actually thinks that every Zelda since and including Link to the Past is shit.

The "Zelda 1 and 2 were the only good Zelda games" crowd is best worth ignoring. The fact of the matter is, the new 3DS game is giving them exactly what they want in mixing up the formula and taking it back to basics at the same time while giving them higher difficulty, but they'll probably harp on its art style or something in order to say it isn't what they want.

Heck, you can't even find the Zelda fans who melted down after Wind Waker's reveal these days.

These pockets of complainers really are a minority.

[talonmalon333]

The "Zelda 1 and 2 were the only good Zelda games" crowd is best worth ignoring. The fact of the matter is, the new 3DS game is giving them exactly what they want in mixing up the formula and taking it back to basics at the same time while giving them higher difficulty, but they'll probably harp on its art style or something in order to say it isn't what they want.

Heck, you can't even find the Zelda fans who melted down after Wind Waker's reveal these days.

These pockets of complainers really are a minority.

You don't have to agree with their opinion. But you can't just call it invalid.

I mean, I'm certainly not one of those fans, but their opinion is perfectly valid, and even I could easily see the arguments for LoZ and AoL being the best games in the series. Plus, the 3DS game wearing an ALttP skin doesn't mean the old fans are getting what they want. It'll surely have many of the modern Zelda conventions. As for their claims of taking elements of the game back to the franchise's roots, I'll believe it when I see it.

Also, I still see plenty of WW haters.

Is Zelda really getting that much worse? I mean, I know that quite a few people were disappointed with Skyward Sword, but everyone and their mother seemed to love all of the console Zelda games that came before it, and the 2D and handheld entries have always done pretty well for the series (not to mention that we are getting a new one). Is this really what gamers have come to? Just one less than stellar game in the series means that it has hit the shitter?

Well, the article argues not just against SS. It argues that the franchise has slowly been on a decline and that it has reached it's all-time low with SS. And WW and TP do have their fair share of hate, it's just not nearly to the same extent as SS. Also, if you're including handhelds, there are three less than stellar games in a row.

As I mentioned above, I certainly can't call myself one of those people in any way. However, SS was such a disappointment and, to be honest, it makes me worried about the future of the series. It's not just a weak Zelda game. The entire structure and design of it just feels all wrong to me, and I feel many parts of it will end up sticking in future games. I'm sure I could name off 50 problems I have with the game. In fact I would, but you and many people here haven't finished the game, so I don't want to spoil anything. But some of the problems in the game, I feel have been growing for years, and in SS they are all just brought together and made worse than ever (fetchquests (even though I know you don't mind these as much, but I think they became bigger issues TP and especially SS), handholding, etc.). I just don't want the series to get stale.

Spoiler

Though I will inevitably get excited when Zelda Wii U is announced.

[close]

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Skyward sword is just one game. People need to get over it.

As for the people who don't like most Zelda games past the first few, they are in the minority opinion for a reason.

[talonmalon333]

Skyward sword is just one game. People need to get over it.

As for the people who don't like most Zelda games past the first few, they are in the minority opinion for a reason.

Three counting the DS games.

Again, it's fair for people to not like where Zelda is now. And it's perfectly fair to be worried about the series' future. My main issue with the article I posted is that it tends to worship the original LoZ in some areas too much. For example, it looks at the invisible bombable walls in the overworld and says that's good design, whereas in later games they dumbed it down by showing cracks in the wall. I mean, making the bombable walls invisible is not good game design. It just depends on luck in finding them.

EDIT: I also think the article is way too harsh on puzzles.

[Spark Of Spirit]

No, if they think the only Zelda games that have any merit are the buggiest ones with the most boring puzzle, dungeon, and boss design then I can safely say they will never like another Zelda game. Being that every Zelda game since then has better puzzles, dungeons, and bosses by leaps and bounds. It isn't even a contest. That's pretty close to invalid to me.

But, uh, I don't see anyone ragging on Wind Waker for its art style these days. Mostly if they complain it's about actual gameplay features, not that CARTOONS DON'T ZELDA.

[talonmalon333]

No, if they think the only Zelda games that have any merit are the buggiest ones with the most boring puzzle, dungeon, and boss design then I can safely say they will never like another Zelda game. Being that every Zelda game since then has better puzzles, dungeons, and bosses by leaps and bounds. It isn't even a contest. That's pretty close to invalid to me.

The original LoZ is far more exploration based than any game since. You can basically do anything you want, there's no linear narrative and not much story at all, really. The dungeons are more simplistic labyrinths with no single path through them with secret passages all over (which is something I find makes them quite good today). And it pretty much depends on you to grow stronger. You can call the puzzles boring, but that really doesn't matter much because the original game was not a puzzle-based adventure. It's like saying Wind Waker fails as a stealth game (Forsaken Fortress) compared to MGS. I can only think of a few puzzles from the entire game. Really, the original LoZ probably has more in common with Skyrim than recent Zelda games.

With ALttP, they took a greater interest in a narrative and puzzles, and a bit more linearity in general. The overworld closes off areas until you get the needed item (especially in the Dark World), and the dungeons for the most part have a single path. This is the game where puzzles began to take the spotlight, and that would continue to grow more and more over the years until we got to SS. And at that point, the series had officially taken a complete 180 turn. It started with a game about exploration with virtually no real puzzles (LoZ), to a game that's almost 100% puzzles and no exploration.

Like I said before, I'm not one of those "NES Zelda rules, screw every other game" people. I happen to agree with you that the series got better since its early days. However, what you view as the franchise growing in every conceivable way since its birth, I see it more as the franchise has evolved and twisted to the point where the original game is now completely unique in its own series. It's not as simple as "every game since is better", in my opinion. There's also the fact that the original Zelda is simply a very different game from its followers. And someone might not like that direction it took. They might prefer exploration Zelda to puzzle/story Zelda. I also disagree that every Zelda is better than the original.

That's just my take on it.

But, uh, I don't see anyone ragging on Wind Waker for its art style these days. Mostly if they complain it's about actual gameplay features, not that CARTOONS DON'T ZELDA.

Yeah, you're right actually. I just assumed you were referring to people's opinions on the game as a whole. I do see a few people around that still rag about its art style, such as Sean Malstrom. But that guy's borderline insane, so this is an opinion I don't mind disregarding.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I think every Zelda is mechanically better than the originals and I much prefer every addition ALTTP made to the formula that made it into every later Zelda, but Skyward Sword's weaknesses really have nothing to do with ALTTP, LA, or OoT, in my opinion. The newer games have a LOT of exploration to find items that aren't blind guessing games (sorry, but burning random bushes and pushing every tombstone in every direction with no indicator of if you're progressing is not good exploration, it's poor design) that were fixed in the follow ups to actually giving players hints to find either items or heart pieces. Exploration is no fun if the game punishes you for not exploring the way it wants you to.

But if the biggest issue is linearity, well that's exactly what they're doing with ALBW. You can go to any dungeon you want at any time in any order you want. If that's the number 1 issue, well, they're directly dealing with it here. Saying "they might screw it up" is sort of beside the point and avoiding a solution they're giving the player.

My problem with Skyward Sword was not that it was linear, it was that it felt like one long corridor. The story focus or motion controls can be good or bad depending on tastes, but I've never liked corridor level design in funneling players down a set path unless it's an arcade style game where score and general action and enemy placement are the focus. Zelda, being an adventure game, has no excuse for doing this. That and it didn't really fix the problem of items only being useful in the dungeons you get them in, if dungeon order is linear then there's really no reason to force that.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

No, if they think the only Zelda games that have any merit are the buggiest ones with the most boring puzzle, dungeon, and boss design then I can safely say they will never like another Zelda game. Being that every Zelda game since then has better puzzles, dungeons, and bosses by leaps and bounds. It isn't even a contest. That's pretty close to invalid to me.

Does that include the CDI Zelda games, by any chance?

[Spark Of Spirit]

No, if they think the only Zelda games that have any merit are the buggiest ones with the most boring puzzle, dungeon, and boss design then I can safely say they will never like another Zelda game. Being that every Zelda game since then has better puzzles, dungeons, and bosses by leaps and bounds. It isn't even a contest. That's pretty close to invalid to me.

Does that include the CDI Zelda games, by any chance?

As well as Mario Hotel, of course.

[talonmalon333]

I think every Zelda is mechanically better than the originals and I much prefer every addition ALTTP made to the formula that made it into every later Zelda, but Skyward Sword's weaknesses really have nothing to do with ALTTP, LA, or OoT, in my opinion. The newer games have a LOT of exploration to find items that aren't blind guessing games (sorry, but burning random bushes and pushing every tombstone in every direction with no indicator of if you're progressing is not good exploration, it's poor design) that were fixed in the follow ups to actually giving players hints to find either items or heart pieces. Exploration is no fun if the game punishes you for not exploring the way it wants you to.

But if the biggest issue is linearity, well that's exactly what they're doing with ALBW. You can go to any dungeon you want at any time in any order you want. If that's the number 1 issue, well, they're directly dealing with it here. Saying "they might screw it up" is sort of beside the point and avoiding a solution they're giving the player.

My problem with Skyward Sword was not that it was linear, it was that it felt like one long corridor. The story focus or motion controls can be good or bad depending on tastes, but I've never liked corridor level design in funneling players down a set path unless it's an arcade style game where score and general action and enemy placement are the focus. Zelda, being an adventure game, has no excuse for doing this. That and it didn't really fix the problem of items only being useful in the dungeons you get them in, if dungeon order is linear then there's really no reason to force that.

What do you mean exactly by "mechanically"?

Also, I think that the issues with SS are the result of a growing thing in the series. The Zelda franchise has been picking up habits with each game, whether it's an empty overworld, filler, too much handholding, these are all things that have grown more present in the games released within the past ten years. SS just represents the peak of that, essentially compiling every problem with Zelda and taking them to new heights. You say your issue with SS is not the linearity but the fact that it feels like one long corridor. But doesn't that fact directly connect to the game being overly linear?

I agree that burning random bushes and pushing random gravestones isn't good exploration. Like I said earlier, there are many aspects of LoZ that are simply dated, and don't deserve that article's praise. But just the sense of taking it upon yourself to explore places all around the map is something that is no longer present in modern Zelda games. Recent games put up invisible walls to make sure you don't go to certain places. And that's fine, but no matter what you prefer, it does represent a different approach to the new games that some may dislike. The original Zelda allowed you to go to any area anytime you wished, but said areas were polluted with really powerful monsters. So you could still go to them early on, you just had to be prepared to deal with things that could kill you in a single hit. That is something people might prefer in Zelda, over what it has done in recent years. I've long held the opinion that, if LoZ got an updated remake with the same fundementals of the original version, it could be a great game. Heck, both of the NES games could use WiiWare remakes or something. If they need to do remakes, I'd absolutely take that over ALttP 3D or Majora's Mask 3D.

No, if they think the only Zelda games that have any merit are the buggiest ones with the most boring puzzle, dungeon, and boss design then I can safely say they will never like another Zelda game. Being that every Zelda game since then has better puzzles, dungeons, and bosses by leaps and bounds. It isn't even a contest. That's pretty close to invalid to me.

Does that include the CDI Zelda games, by any chance?

As well as Mario Hotel, of course.

If you include Skyward Sword, then of course you're gonna include those CDI games.

I just went there.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

In all honesty, even without having played SS, I can safely say that I'd still play it over the NES games. I mean, I have a ton of respect for those games, but neither of them has aged well at all, IMO. The first game doesn't have any semblance of clever puzzles aside from maybe a few (it was basically designed to sell Nintendo Power magazines with walkthroughs in them), and the enemy placement was so haphazard without much thought put into the design. The over-world was also shit by the standards of other 2D Zelda games. The 2nd game had the shitty over-world and also tried a new gameplay style, which is commendable in that it took a risk, but for me it just wan't very much fun. Personally, I'd take any Zelda game (other than the CDI ones) over those games. Respecting the originals is one thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I can't be honest in saying that they show their age in more than just a few minor ways.

[Spark Of Spirit]

If you want me to be truthful, I'll say I can't play any overhead action game these days that doesn't let me move diagonally other than the first Ys games because of the way combat is designed. Your sword is too short and comes out too slow and the enemies move too fast in random patterns and since you move so clumsily it leads to a lot of cheap hits. Even without that, the dungeons are really basic and dull with not much going on except enemies that take too many hits to kill and kill you in only a few. The items are boring, every Zelda game has better items that isn't a CD-I game that let me do much more either against enemies or for exploration.

You're also living in the age of gamers who won't read a tutorial or an instruction manual to learn how to play a game and trade them in if they're too hard. Nintendo caters to the general public. They're not going to put out an obtuse game in one of their highest selling series and risk a pocket of NES gamers who think ALTTP ruined the series to bring them their highest selling Zelda game since OoT.

Because that probably won't happen.

Anyway, most of my favorite games are linear, so it doesn't bother me. My problem is not going from point A to B, but what I'm able to do from point A to B. Having a single corridor with no room to move severely limits what I can do to the point that it basically turns the game into an on-rail shooter. If I wanted an on-rail shooter, I wouldn't be playing an adventure game.

[talonmalon333]

Nintendo caters to the general public. They're not going to put out an obtuse game in one of their highest selling series and risk a pocket of NES gamers who think ALTTP ruined the series to bring them their highest selling Zelda game since OoT.

I'm unsure what you mean here. The original LoZ is a close 3rd in the series when it comes to sales.

I agree, however, that following its style completely wouldn't be best because it shows its age in many ways.

[Spark Of Spirit]

The original LoZ was a new game at the time on the system that revived video games. It had a higher userbase than both the SNES and N64 and far above the Gamecube. It's no wonder it had more sales since it had a higher audience. But still, back then people bought games like Power Blade, Contra, and Jackal, none of which are "mainstream" games. Nowadays, games like Wonderful 101, No More Heroes, and Yakuza don't sell because gamers aren't willing to sit and learn a game anymore. That's why we have six hour rollercoasters with no replay value and games that play the game for the player who isn't too good (though thankfully that is optional) to get him to the end. The days of people buying games for only fun is long over.

Anyway, I don't mind more options in adventure games, but I never got far in the original LoZ as a kid. Why? Because I had no clue of what to do and I would rather being playing a game that wasn't trying to leave me to figure out what they couldn't be bothered to explain.

[talonmalon333]

So apparently A Link Between worlds got a 9.4 out of 10 from IGN. Though this is also the site that gave Skyward Sword a 10/10.

I guess we'll see. I'll need to play the game for myself to be convinced. At the very least though, I'm definitely glad that they are abandoning the style of the DS games.