Topic: What makes Zelda Zelda?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

This thread is a broken record of discussions that took place last year during Wii's gaming drought.

lol zelda fans

[KDR_11k]

I felt that TP's overworld was much better than OOT's but then again I hate almost everything about OOT. Even if the stuff on the fields didn't have any purpose in the story I think that gave it more of a point, it doesn't feel like exploration when all you see is a sign "come back later" and later get guided to those places anyway. To me exploration is seeing things I would not see otherwise.

But I think the original question was in how much Okami differs from Zelda. One difference is that you rarely return to "cleared" parts of the overworld for anything besides using new abilites to unearth some minor treasures.

[wandering]

A Zelda game has a world which must be explored, an evil which must be felled, and a child who must grow up. It fills you with awe, and fear, and occasionally makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

I agree with this definition.

also, it proves that TP is not a real Zelda.

If you're saying Link wasn't a child at the beginning of Twilight Princess, I disagree.

[mastro]

I would really like to see Link be more of a combination of a warrior and mage. I think that could add a lot to the series. OoT was the closest Link ever got to being a mage and I would really like to see that go further and evolve into new gameplay mechanics. As for the world I really do like imaginative worlds and I believe TP has it(western section, horseback fighting on bridge) although not as much as WW. Those parts were very memorable and fun to play to me. With TP they tried hard to keep the OoT feel and it kept the game from feeling completely fresh.

[Nick DiMola]

This thread makes me want to punch babies.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Haha, wow, you do realize you can say the same thing about OOT right? Hyrule field is the epitome of excessive in that game, it was one huge field with NOTHING to do in it. More to discover in OOT? I think you need to play OOT again because TP beats it over the head when it comes to discovery.

Epona, one of the main complaints about OOT was the empty field (I'm sorry but your "holes to fall into" was not discovery, and most did not care for it. So I think Nintendo found a balance between utilizing Epona and not having to trek accross a long distance. In fact it could be argued that the warp system was far more Zelda like than OOT since the whistles did that in LTTP and LoZ.  Heck you could even argue that Epona is anti-Zelda if you want to start saying what is or is not Zelda. So please, this is bordering on silly hate-rage, the complaints about Zelda: TP were always about it being too similar to OOT not some mutant like Kairon is trying to suggest.

Zelda: TP was the next step in the Zelda series evolution, like Wind Waker, it integrated more cinematic elements into the main story. Because of lack of N64 hardware limitations they were able to expand the world leaving more to be explored. More than once I was in awe of Zelda: TPs world, and I could not wait to explore every nook and cranny of it. I have no doubt Miyamoto would have expanded the Zelda world himself if he had the hardware power to do it, in fact he was a key part to TP which I think Kairon is forgetting. To even argue that OOT Hyrule field had more merit than TP is ludicrus at best since it was TRUE filler, regardless if it had secret holes to fall into. In TP I hated to go past areas in Hyrule field that I could explore, in OOT I couldn't get through the field fast enough.

[Kairon]

I have nothing against expanding the landscape of Hyrule. I'm all for horseback riding or epic scale. I have nothing against warps even. But TP simply implemented these in an uneven fashion.

The underutilization of Hyrule Field's main features, the excess of warps for areas beyond epona's reach, the lack of real visual setpieces in the fields even... This was a great game, but as a Zelda-quality or Nintendo-quality title, it was surprisingly not as well put together as I was expecting.

So GP, how does TP excel in discovery? There are few caves to delve into(and even then they're exceedingly linear), you're punished for discovering with excess rupees you can't carry around (there's no worse punishment for an explorer than discovering a new place, finding a treasure chest... then not being allowed to take what's inside), and the twilight dichotomy that worked so well in the beginning of the game is virtually stripped away from you in the second half. Not to mention, on the whole TP is one of, if not the most, linear, scripted, on-rails Zelda ever.

[Armak88]

I can see both sides of this argument, but to say that TP is not a Zelda game is insane. If anything, TP is too zelda, and that's the problem. I enjoyed TP a lot. I felt that the dungeons were extremely well done and the boss fights were fun. The game would toy with your expectations because it was so similar to OoT, which I thought was clever. I was blown away when the magnet in the fire temple first pulled me up to the ceiling with the iron boots. But then there were elements that felt underdeveloped. The use of wolf link, the sword techniques (they really should have introduced sword/shield using enemies earlier i the game) and I felt like some of the items really could have been used more. But this only tells me that the game was not perfect. The only other complaint that I had was that it was too easy, but I think most games are heading that direction, which is too bad, but I don't mind as much if they are still fun.

What it comes down to is that the only reason TP isn't seen as better than OoT is that OoT came first. TP is better than OoT in every way. So this I suppose brings me to my question. It might be another thread but all the complaining begs the asking, what is it that you want to see from the next zelda game?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Ocarina's field was the result of N64's bleeding edge technology.  Be happy.

TP's field(s) was meant to be zoomed by as scenery (where did i hear that before...), as the wolf and the horse enabled it so (on the flip side, it also became a time filler).  The avatar will encounter very little without moving forward in some sense (roaming on foot is somewhat ridiculous and is entirely the fault of the player).

But yeah, TP was a hand-holding Disney ride.

[Kairon]

What it comes down to is that the only reason TP isn't seen as better than OoT is that OoT came first. TP is better than OoT in every way. So this I suppose brings me to my question. It might be another thread but all the complaining begs the asking, what is it that you want to see from the next zelda game?

I want more use of the torch. More caves, dark ruins, and maybe even a semi-combat use for it. Light is a major aspect of exploration, I think it could be used to great effect in an exploration game...

Also, I'd like to see more vertical uses of the hookshot like from TP, but maybe a bit more natural/rappelling/spelunking sort of, not the mechanical way it was done in TP.

Ocarina's field was the result of N64's bleeding edge technology.  Be happy.

TP's field(s) was meant to be zoomed by as scenery (where did i hear that before...), as the wolf and the horse enabled it so (on the flip side, it also became a time filler).  The avatar will encounter very little without moving forward in some sense (roaming on foot is somewhat ridiculous and is entirely the fault of the player).

But yeah, TP was a hand-holding Disney ride.

I guess I can see the "zoomed by" as scenery bit... but that's anti-thetical to the explorative nature of Zelda games isn't it? The natural sense of Zelda should be to take the time to become personally acquainted with nooks and crannies in the landscape. Miyamoto games are like Japanese gardens, a small amount of space but with choreographed discovery around every bend. This line of "scenery you zoom by" sounds extremely disjunctive.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Does every flipping footstep you make have to lead you to a rock (or an octorok) like in Zelda 1?

To me, TP's field seemed to be designated as your horse's playground.

What would the game look like if Zelda 1's raw, "content"-filled world design showed up in today's games?  You'd get the likes of Pikmin and Metroid Prime.  TP has these areas, but they've been separated from the field areas (the outskirts of the main map, I suppose), and they're not necessarily horse-friendly.

Now, if there was some wicked subterranean regions, full of more secrets, beneath the entire field, accessible from a slightly odd but inconspicuous tree (Princess Bride, anyone?), that would be neat, and would provide a contrast to the calm emptiness of the field.  Unfortunately Nintendo doesn't want to take these kinds of risks anymore, cuz they're too conservative in order to please fans by making an overly-Zelda Zelda; or they wouldn't have any ideas left for Metroid.

Legend of Zelda: The Last Mole People of the Phantom Underworld Crystal Kingdom of Doom

[DAaaMan64]

I loved the horse back fighting, it almost had that GTA feel of it, something you could just kinda do for hours. Much like the fishing was in OOT.

[Bill Aurion]

I'm disappinted in the field area because it simply lacked a cohesive character. Not only was there less to discover compared to OoT, but there were many landscape features which were put in that served no purpose whatsoever, extremely shocking for a Nintendo game. The ruins in the big western field(TP orientation), for example, were not hooked into any story or sidequest whatsoever, something I consider a HUGE oversight. The shallow lake and bridge in the southern fields too were placed, but were'nt there for any real purpose.

!@#*(%

That's the only way to describe what was going through my mind when I read this...Maybe it was because I spent my entire childhood in the woods, but I take exploration very seriously...And the very core of exploration is that you don't EXPECT to find something...

That is actually the problem with most adventure games: the fact that the gamer (such as yourself) has been tricked/trained into thinking that everything must have a purpose...You see it with a lot of games, where some weird thing pops up and gamers all over the internet are intent on it having some deeper meaning...Wind Waker was actually an excellent step in the opposite direction of this flawed game design, producing islands that had little or no purpose to the main direction of the game...

In the real world, if you were out exploring a vast field, and you see a really tall tree out in the middle of it, what would you do?  Most likely go and check it out because it stands out...But when you get there, are you expecting a reward?  I sure as hell hope not...Exploration is about finding and discovering new things, NOT expecting a payout from it...That just makes a payout just that much sweeter when you do find something of importance...

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Lol bill, treasure maps don't count.

[Ian Sane]

I wonder if part of any of the "problems" with TP or other Zelda games is that the bar has been set too high.

I got into Zelda with LttP.  I don't really care for the NES Zeldas.  LttP is where all the elements that make me a fan of Zelda were introduced.  After that comes Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask.  Well hell you could give me a list of the best games of all time, have those titles as the top four and I would have a hard time disagreeing.  The Zelda series busted out four of the greatest games ever IN A ROW.  Well how does one follow up on that?  Mario had that problem with Mario Sunshine and Zelda has that problem as well.  Once you get on such a role that fans get used to every new sequel being a GOAT candidate even a great game is going to be a bit of a disappointment.

Zelda probably has raised the bar higher than any videogame series in existence.  OoT is the popular choice for greatest game of all time.  It tops GameRankings almost ten years after it's release.  The game got perfect 10's from everyone.  Anyone who craps on it in any way is accused of trolling.  The game has become mythical.  It's the Citizen Kane of videogames.  Nintendo can probably never top it.  They can make a game that is technically as good or better but it won't have the mystique.  And if they ever top it then they're f*cked again because then they'll struggle with topping THAT game.

I think Nintendo is fully aware of this too.  That's why Majora's Mask was such a unique title.  They knew on the N64 that an OoT2 wasn't going to fly so they turned OoT on it's ear and made more of a companion and it worked.  But once they moved to newer hardware fans were obviously going to expect a sequel that uses the new hardware to provide a jump up and it's just too hard to do that.

I guess they should just try to make great Zelda games and we'll all see which ones we become most attached to.  There are people here that are as ga-ga over WW or TP as I am over Link's Awakening.  That's just how things work.  For me the post-N64 Zelda game that really grabbed my interest was Minish Cap of all things.  I couldn't even tell you why but I plowed through that game in days and couldn't get enough of it.

[KDR_11k]

Guess that's why I hate OOT, I played Wind Waker before it and thus lacked the "OMG 3D!!" effect, instead noticing the improvements Wind Waker brought and missing them.

[Ian Sane]

Guess that's why I hate OOT, I played Wind Waker before it and thus lacked the "OMG 3D!!" effect, instead noticing the improvements Wind Waker brought and missing them.

There was more to OoT than "OMG 3D!!".  The ambition of the game provided more of the wow factor at the time.  I mean you play the instrument with button combinations!  The sun rises and sets!  If you hold a stick out near a butterfly sometimes it will land on your stick!  At the time that level of detail was unheard of in any videogame.

[Kairon]

I'm disappinted in the field area because it simply lacked a cohesive character. Not only was there less to discover compared to OoT, but there were many landscape features which were put in that served no purpose whatsoever, extremely shocking for a Nintendo game. The ruins in the big western field(TP orientation), for example, were not hooked into any story or sidequest whatsoever, something I consider a HUGE oversight. The shallow lake and bridge in the southern fields too were placed, but were'nt there for any real purpose.

!@#*(%

That's the only way to describe what was going through my mind when I read this...Maybe it was because I spent my entire childhood in the woods, but I take exploration very seriously...And the very core of exploration is that you don't EXPECT to find something...

That is actually the problem with most adventure games: the fact that the gamer (such as yourself) has been tricked/trained into thinking that everything must have a purpose...You see it with a lot of games, where some weird thing pops up and gamers all over the internet are intent on it having some deeper meaning...Wind Waker was actually an excellent step in the opposite direction of this flawed game design, producing islands that had little or no purpose to the main direction of the game...

In the real world, if you were out exploring a vast field, and you see a really tall tree out in the middle of it, what would you do?  Most likely go and check it out because it stands out...But when you get there, are you expecting a reward?  I sure as hell hope not...Exploration is about finding and discovering new things, NOT expecting a payout from it...That just makes a payout just that much sweeter when you do find something of importance...

I agree with you, but TP almost punishes you for exploration. There's not much to discover, no nooks, no crannies, no hooks for player attention. Exploration, to me, means developing a personal relationship with the landscape, learning how you fill the space and how you can personally use the space. The space is... I never really developed a communication with the landscape in TP...

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

You mean TP?

-1

[Kairon]

Whoopsie-daisy. Man I knew I was tired. And this is before GDC even...urrrggghh

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Don't tell me you're going to GDC.

[KnowsNothing]

If you hold a stick out near a butterfly sometimes it will land on your stick!

I wasted so much time trying to make this happen.  NEVER DID.

[that Baby guy]

Guess that's why I hate OOT, I played Wind Waker before it and thus lacked the "OMG 3D!!" effect, instead noticing the improvements Wind Waker brought and missing them.

There was more to OoT than "OMG 3D!!".  The ambition of the game provided more of the wow factor at the time.  I mean you play the instrument with button combinations!  The sun rises and sets!  If you hold a stick out near a butterfly sometimes it will land on your stick!  At the time that level of detail was unheard of in any videogame.

I think that's part of my problem, Ian.  I think they were too ambitious with OoT, and in the end, I think a lot of actual gameplay was left out for the little details, and those little details weren't worth it.  I think few saw the forest through the trees, and I wanted a nice forest.

[Kairon]

It's the little details that make the game. The reason the adults in my family knew what Super Mario 64 was was because Mario fell asleep if you did nothing for awhile.

[Mikintosh]

Guess that's why I hate OOT, I played Wind Waker before it and thus lacked the "OMG 3D!!" effect, instead noticing the improvements Wind Waker brought and missing them.

There was more to OoT than "OMG 3D!!".  The ambition of the game provided more of the wow factor at the time.  I mean you play the instrument with button combinations!  The sun rises and sets!  If you hold a stick out near a butterfly sometimes it will land on your stick!  At the time that level of detail was unheard of in any videogame.

I think that's part of my problem, Ian.  I think they were too ambitious with OoT, and in the end, I think a lot of actual gameplay was left out for the little details, and those little details weren't worth it.  I think few saw the forest through the trees, and I wanted a nice forest.

What, did they cut something out?

And what exactly would have been gained by them being less amibitious? OoT was such a fantastic game that they could essentially recycle the engine three more times while simply changing the environments and stories and I gladly buy each one because they got the formula so right the first time. The fact that they do something new and different with each installment rather than just making OoT2 & 3 & 4 is what makes Zelda as a series worth it.