Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

[Luigi Dude]

What I want is for Zelda to be cutting edge in that it is constantly the top standard for its genre.  That means it has to be less formulaic.  When people are suggesting with a straight face that Darksiders or Okami do Zelda better than Zelda, then Nintendo isn't doing it right.

Anyone that says Darksider is a better Zelda game is a troll and shouldn't have their opinion counted.  To say Darksider is a better Zelda game than Zelda is like saying Sonic 2006 is a better Mario games then Mario. 

[SixthAngel]

What I want is for Zelda to be cutting edge in that it is constantly the top standard for its genre.  That means it has to be less formulaic.  When people are suggesting with a straight face that Darksiders or Okami do Zelda better than Zelda, then Nintendo isn't doing it right.

I never understood all the Okami love.  It's okay and has great style but beyond that I don't see it.  The beginning is absolutley horrible.  People who say that Twilight Princess had a slow beginning obviously never waded through this army of movies, tutorials and stupid bug guys.  Worst of all all combat is locked into some kind of magical room.  Worst decision ever.

[broodwars]

What I want is for Zelda to be cutting edge in that it is constantly the top standard for its genre.  That means it has to be less formulaic.  When people are suggesting with a straight face that Darksiders or Okami do Zelda better than Zelda, then Nintendo isn't doing it right.

I never understood all the Okami love.  It's okay and has great style but beyond that I don't see it.  The beginning is absolutley horrible.  People who say that Twilight Princess had a slow beginning obviously never waded through this army of movies, tutorials and stupid bug guys.  Worst of all all combat is locked into some kind of magical room.  Worst decision ever.

I'm in the same boat: I thought Okami was ok...ish, but it felt rather slow and dull.  In fact, I found the game so dull that I could never bring myself to do the End Game section and beat the game, something I managed to do with even Twilight Princess (and Twilight Princess' Sky Temple is almost as dull as some of the stuff in Okami).  Okami had some good ideas, but the execution just didn't do anything for me.

[mac<censored>]

What I want is for Zelda to be cutting edge in that it is constantly the top standard for its genre.  That means it has to be less formulaic.  When people are suggesting with a straight face that Darksiders or Okami do Zelda better than Zelda, then Nintendo isn't doing it right.

I never understood all the Okami love.  It's okay and has great style but beyond that I don't see it.  The beginning is absolutley horrible.  People who say that Twilight Princess had a slow beginning obviously never waded through this army of movies, tutorials and stupid bug guys.  Worst of all all combat is locked into some kind of magical room.  Worst decision ever.

And despite all the whining from the usual suspects, Twighlight Princess is an amazing and cool game, and the accusations of "same old same old" ring really hollow.  Yeah it contained a lot of Zelda tropes, but the game felt hugely different than other Zelda games.

[broodwars]

What I want is for Zelda to be cutting edge in that it is constantly the top standard for its genre.  That means it has to be less formulaic.  When people are suggesting with a straight face that Darksiders or Okami do Zelda better than Zelda, then Nintendo isn't doing it right.

I never understood all the Okami love.  It's okay and has great style but beyond that I don't see it.  The beginning is absolutley horrible.  People who say that Twilight Princess had a slow beginning obviously never waded through this army of movies, tutorials and stupid bug guys.  Worst of all all combat is locked into some kind of magical room.  Worst decision ever.

And despite all the whining from the usual suspects, Twighlight Princess is an amazing and cool game, and the accusations of "same old same old" ring really hollow.  Yeah it contained a lot of Zelda tropes, but the game felt hugely different than other Zelda games.

How?  It followed the Zelda formula practically to the letter, and in the rare occasions it deviated it just became more tedious IMO (such as when hunting for the spirit drops in the Twilight Realm).  Aside from probably the Water and Desert Temples (ironically), I found the dungeon design to be oddly lacking as well.  Adding waggle with the Wii version didn't help matters, either.  Twilight Princess wasn't a bad game, but it just felt like Zelda Going Through the Motions to me.  At least Midna was cool, though.

[mac<censored>]

And despite all the whining from the usual suspects, Twighlight Princess is an amazing and cool game, and the accusations of "same old same old" ring really hollow.  Yeah it contained a lot of Zelda tropes, but the game felt hugely different than other Zelda games.

How?  It followed the Zelda formula practically to the letter, and in the rare occasions it deviated it just became more tedious IMO (such as when hunting for the spirit drops in the Twilight Realm).  Aside from probably the Water and Desert Temples (ironically), I found the dungeon design to be oddly lacking as well.  Adding waggle with the Wii version didn't help matters, either.  Twilight Princess wasn't a bad game, but it just felt like Zelda Going Through the Motions to me.  At least Midna was cool, though.

It was vastly more immersive than previous zeldas, and had a sense of style and drama that the series never really had before.  The vibe was very different, melancholy and world-weary, and even scary, and the twilight is wonderfully realized (running along the rooftops in wolf form in the very beginning is magic).  [Other games have used the "dark realm" shtick, but rarely as effectively as this.]

Midna is indeed a great character, unlike the silly/inconsequential/annoying sidekicks and NPRs in previous games; unlike them, she's not only charismatic/mysterious/interesting, but amazingly real.

Despite all the familiar tropes, it felt like a completely different game to me. 

[The closest thing was OOT, but although the time-travel thing was interesting, OOT's general aesthetic was much more mundane, and the platform simply lacked the technical oomph to pull off the 3d environment very well.]

[Sarail]

What I want is for Zelda to be cutting edge in that it is constantly the top standard for its genre.  That means it has to be less formulaic.  When people are suggesting with a straight face that Darksiders or Okami do Zelda better than Zelda, then Nintendo isn't doing it right.

Oh, I'm by no means saying that Darksiders does "Zelda" better than Nintendo (although, I really do love the game). However, Darksiders has several gameplay mechanics that work incredibly well... that I could see benefitting the actual Zelda series.  As for motion, the only motion-related gameplay I enjoyed (and think works phenomenally well) is the IR aiming for the bow/hookshot/slingshot. I'd be perfectly fine with keeping that. Just put that freaking sword back in his left hand, for crying out loud! :


Also, Twilight Princess is my favorite console Zelda hands down. And yes, I played the Wii version with the waggle. But despite that, what mac<censored> listed above is all so very true. The game oozes with personality and character. There's this real sense of urgency in the land of Hyrule. I felt a bit of suspense at certain points of the game. And Midna quickly became one of my favorite Nintendo created characters because of this game. Also, I thought every dungeon was fantastic -- I just wanted to see more use out of Link's new Spinner toy. There should have been SO many new gameplay options created because of that thing... but nope. Only a select few instances... ugh.

[NWR_insanolord]

Seeing as, with a couple exceptions, every new Zelda game stars a different Link, there really isn't a reason he has to be left-handed in all of them.

[Sarail]

But he's left-handed in the GameCube version -- the original form of the game! So yes, he's been left-handed in all of them. Skyward Sword is the one breaking the mold.  He's a southpaw because Miyamoto's a southpaw. No excuse to change that.

[NWR_insanolord]

But there is an excuse. Just because you don't like the reason they're doing it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate reason.

[Adrock]

I agree with broodwars. The core of Twilight Princess is Ocarina of Time through and through. Being the 3rd 3D sequel, ideas that were fresh in 1998 felt exhausting 8 years later. Twilight Princess felt like a direct response to Wind Waker's radical departure, except Nintendo addressed the wrong thing first. Sure, some people found the cel shading off-putting, but at its most basic level, Wind Waker was Ocarina of Time. Twilight Princess was even more of that. It felt like Ocarina of Time 2 more than even Majora's Mask, a game built on the same exact engine. I can't speak for anyone else, but I wanted a game that made me feel the same way I did when I played Ocarina of Time for the first time which, I'll admit, is a very tall order. Like A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time changed the way I viewed videogames. I haven't felt that way about a Zelda game since.

[Luigi Dude]

It was vastly more immersive than previous zeldas, and had a sense of style and drama that the series never really had before.  The vibe was very different, melancholy and world-weary, and even scary, and the twilight is wonderfully realized (running along the rooftops in wolf form in the very beginning is magic).  [Other games have used the "dark realm" shtick, but rarely as effectively as this.]

Midna is indeed a great character, unlike the silly/inconsequential/annoying sidekicks and NPRs in previous games; unlike them, she's not only charismatic/mysterious/interesting, but amazingly real.

Despite all the familiar tropes, it felt like a completely different game to me. 

[The closest thing was OOT, but although the time-travel thing was interesting, OOT's general aesthetic was much more mundane, and the platform simply lacked the technical oomph to pull off the 3d environment very well.]

Nicely said.  Even though Twilight Princess shares a few traditional Zelda tropes, it still manages to add quite a few new things and was put together in a way that made it a very different game then Ocarina of Time.  Not to mention when compared to most videogame sequels, Twilight Princess still added more over it's predecessor then about 98% of all other sequels on the market, which makes complaints about it being more of the same rather hypocritical since most of the people who complain about it are also praising other series that are far more guilty of the same thing.

[Ceric]

It was vastly more immersive than previous zeldas, and had a sense of style and drama that the series never really had before.  The vibe was very different, melancholy and world-weary, and even scary, and the twilight is wonderfully realized (running along the rooftops in wolf form in the very beginning is magic).  [Other games have used the "dark realm" shtick, but rarely as effectively as this.]

Midna is indeed a great character, unlike the silly/inconsequential/annoying sidekicks and NPRs in previous games; unlike them, she's not only charismatic/mysterious/interesting, but amazingly real.

Despite all the familiar tropes, it felt like a completely different game to me. 

[The closest thing was OOT, but although the time-travel thing was interesting, OOT's general aesthetic was much more mundane, and the platform simply lacked the technical oomph to pull off the 3d environment very well.]

Nicely said.  Even though Twilight Princess shares a few traditional Zelda tropes, it still manages to add quite a few new things and was put together in a way that made it a very different game then Ocarina of Time.  Not to mention when compared to most videogame sequels, Twilight Princess still added more over it's predecessor then about 98% of all other sequels on the market, which makes complaints about it being more of the same rather hypocritical since most of the people who complain about it are also praising other series that are far more guilty of the same thing.

I would say yes that TP is more of the Same in different ways but, it is a different beast then OoT.  I should probably play it again, after I finish WW... I do think though without the N64 limitations OoT would have been more like TP.

[Ian Sane]

running along the rooftops in wolf form in the very beginning is magic

Oh man, I HATED that part.  The whole time I'm like "DAMMIT when does this game start for real?!!"  TP took it's sweet time getting going.
 
TP was the first Zelda where as I was playing I was calling out what was going to happen before it happened.  About halfway in I looked at my incomplete map and FILLED IT IN MYSELF.  I knew EXACTLY where everything was going to be.  That's how close it followed OoT's template.  "There's Death Mountain, Lake Hylia will be over here..."  The sky dungeon was the one exception for obvious reasons.
 
I think something like insisting that Link be left handed is part of the problem of the Zelda series.  The series has introduced so many tropes and it's like every game has to check them off and that leaves less and less room for new ideas.  Link doesn't have to be left handed, he doesn't have to have a horse named Epona, he doesn't have to get a hookshot at some point, he doesn't have to visit Gorons, he doesn't have fight Ganon EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.  All these details are unnecessary and if you didn't have them it would still be Zelda.  I would say the only mandatory constants is that the main character is a elf-looking guy named Link who wears a green tunic, has a sword and shield, and goes on some sort of adventure.  And the mandatory gameplay elements are that the game has to be one big open world (as opposed to linear levels) and that interaction with the world is done in realtime.  Those gameplay elements are what gives Zelda its appeal and those details about Link are the barebone elements that makes the character recognizable in the first place.  Once you start mandating that there has be Death Mountain and Link has to get the Master Sword at some point, you are pigeonholing the series and restricting creativity.  That turns Zelda into a formula, when it should only be a broad outline.
 
By the way, I personally don't feel that Darksiders or Okami are better than Zelda, but I do encounter that opinion a fair bit on non-Nintendo boards.

[Adrock]

I would say the only mandatory constants is that the main character is a elf-looking guy named Link who wears a green tunic, has a sword and shield, and goes on some sort of adventure.

I wouldn't even say that is mandatory, even though Link is the only constant in the entire series. I don't think anything should be "mandatory" because that's where you get caught in the trappings of predictability. A Zelda game without Link? Blasphemy. That would be like if they made a Zelda game without the Triforce, Master Sword, Ganon/Ganondorf, Hyrule or Zelda... Nintendo doesn't have to rely on characters, locations, items, or macguffins as if they're ingredients for some Zelda recipe.

I remember the exact moment I stopped being impressed with Twilight Princess. Even though I read Ganondorf would make an appearance, I realized the game was taking no chances once he showed up. Things like Zelda "dying" weren't surprising because I figured, "Ehh, she'll be back" and lo and behold, she was... inexplicably.

[UltimatePartyBear]

I was thinking that there's no way we'd have to fight Ganon again in Skyward Sword since it seems to take place before OoT.  But on the other hand, Miyamoto doesn't really care for continuity between the games, so putting Ganon in SS could serve as the death blow to any kind of sensible continuity.  I guess it's up in the air.

[mac<censored>]

Hmm, isn't the reported lack of explicit dungeons in TSS a good sign that maybe it's going to reduce the use of hoary old Zelda traditions a bit?  [not that I mind them so much, but it'd be cool to see some new directions...]

[Ian Sane]

I wouldn't even say that is mandatory, even though Link is the only constant in the entire series.

Well they have to sell the game still, right?  Is there really much point in using the "Legend of Zelda" name if you don't even have the main character in it?  I figure a Zelda game without Link would be unmarketable.
 
One problem is that the same company that uses Mario like Garfield and just shoves in whatever, makes Zelda and Metroid which have a certain style that does not lend themselves to the same sort of generic use.  Mario has always been popular but his games are pure gameplay so the franchise does not have the same emotional attachment.  Zelda and Metroid's open world design emphasize exploration which allows the player to have a better connection to the world presented.  Mario's world are just obstacle courses.  Zelda and Metroid have virtual worlds.  Therefore slotting in "Bowser kidnaps the Princess" in as the generic narrative works because no one is playing Mario for anything but to jump around through obstacle courses anyway.  Note that they aren't so generic with the Mario RPGs because with that type of gameplay that methodology would not work.  It would become tiresome.
 
Nintendo used to (likely by complete fluke) treat Zelda and Metroid differently.  All Zelda and Metroid games were "real" games in the series.  They didn't have spin-offs and releases were not that frequent.  Now they will make spin-offs and releases are more frequent.  Metroid currently has some problems but that's not because of generic design.  Zelda however is made by EAD, the same dev that makes Mario, and they have made the series use more of the generic Mario design philosophy.  It doesn't work with Zelda.  Since the exploration of the world is such a key selling point you can't use the same Hyrule and the same story and the same villian every time without it losing its novelty.  The details are such a major part that having a lazy approach to it greatly compromises the game, far more than it ever does with Mario.  With Mario it very much feels like EAD pulls some lame story and setting out of their ass at the last minute.  It feels more and more like they do that with Zelda and they can't.  Link can't be a generic mascot and Zelda can't be a game where the world is slapped together at the last minute.  You need to create a world that matters to the player.  No one sees Zelda as a bunch of obstacle courses like they do with Mario.

[Adrock]

Well they have to sell the game still, right?  Is there really much point in using the "Legend of Zelda" name if you don't even have the main character in it?  I figure a Zelda game without Link would be unmarketable.

Probably about as unmarketable as a Metal Gear game without Solid Snake or a Castlevania game without a Belmont. Neither of those things have ever happened, right? Come on, man... Snake Eater features neither Solid Snake nor a Metal Gear. "Oh, well, Big Boss is pretty much Solid Sn..." NO, HE'S NOT SOLID SNAKE. Metal Gear Solid Rising apparently stars Raiden exclusively and if the ending of Metal Gear Solid 4 is anything to go by and Konami doesn't reboot the series, we're probably not seeing Solid Snake suit up again either (unless they do some more **** with nano-machines or something...).

Alternatively, Other M stars the series main character, is called Metroid, includes many of the series signatures like missiles and different beams yet it's the least Metroid-y Metroid in the series. Say what you will about the quality of the game, but none of the previously mentioned things, namely the presence of its main character since you brought it up, changed anything. Point being, having this character or that isn't what makes a series, especially when the fundamentals of its themes are curb-stomped beyond recognizability. Other M AKA Are-You-There-God,-It's-Me-Samus turned our favorite bounty hunter into a stupid asshole.

Is there really much point in using the "Legend of Zelda" name when Princess Zelda doesn't even show up? Link's Awakening is essentially The Legend of NOT-Zelda because she's not even in the game. Furthermore, the entire set-up for The Wind Waker revolves around the consequences of Link NOT appearing. Does Nintendo have the balls to pull off an Empire Strikes Back-esque ending? The point is something is only mandatory if you make it mandatory. A Zelda game without Link isn't inconceivable because there's more to the series than the characters that make up its world.

What if Nintendo told the origin story of The Wind Waker's flooded world? For the purposes of this example, let's say the player takes the role of a girl, later revealed to be Princess Zelda who FAILS to stop Ganondorf then her father, King Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule, begs the gods to flood the world. Would you call that game not a Zelda game just because it didn't feature Link? Narratively, it takes places in Hyrule and fits snugly in the series loose canon, explicitly tied to one of the main games. Thematically, a lone hero is tasked with saving the world from the forces of evil (what every Zelda game is basically about). Nintendo could do a lot of things with that set-up. They could take the easy way out and just outfit Zelda with things Link traditionally picks up. Or they could make a game in which players had no idea what would happen next, yet it would unquestionably be a Zelda game. What if Nintendo didn't reveal it to be the prequel to The Wind Waker before the game's release? At the end, we watch the ocean flood the land of Hyrule. Jaws be dropped, bricks be shat.

That sense of unpredictability is part of what's missing in Zelda today. In A Link to the Past, Ganon made his second appearance. Who knew? That was cool 20 years ago. Now, it's expected and when he shows up, I'm like, "This motherfucker AGAIN?!"

[NWR_insanolord]

A Zelda without Link would be a much bigger departure than either of the two examples you mentioned. Maybe that's because it's been the same for so long so that it would be a bigger shock, or maybe it's because Nintendo games tend to have such simple stories that using a different main character would pretty much make it a different series, but it would definitely be a bigger deal.

[Adrock]

It should be a big deal and a shock. That's kind of the point so you have no (or at least, fewer) expectations for what might happen (pretty much the opposite of what Zelda games are today), but I don't think it would make it a different series for reasons previously stated in my last post. The protagonist isn't what define a series so much as the atmosphere and themes. If Nintendo replaced Link with an alien in a mech suit, yeah, that's ridiculous. However, placing sword and shield in Zelda's hands because plot wise Link never appears doesn't make the series unrecognizable.

[NWR_insanolord]

Okay, yeah, you could do a game with Zelda as the protagonist, or Ganondorf, or maybe a couple other characters, and still be Zelda. I thought you meant just invent a brand new character for it.

[Adrock]

Well, I guess Nintendo could replace Link with a brand new character, but they shouldn't do so for the sake of doing so. There would have to be a damn good reason otherwise, why do it? That doesn't inherently change anything because it'd just be Link in different skin which would be totally besides the point. I brought up a Wind Waker prequel because that's the only time it's stated in the entire series that Link doesn't appear. That's a perfect spot to place a new protagonist though I feel like Zelda taking up the mantle in Link's stead would be far more resonant with fans and totally worth the payoff.

Hmm, then again, I guess scratch that. Any place you could conceivably replace Link with a new character would be better off having Zelda herself replacing him.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Eiji Aonuma Returns to Famitsu Live

The Legend of Zelda series producer will discuss Skyward Sword later today.

Eiji Aonuma will appear on a special Famitsu Live broadcast at 8 p.m. Japan Standard Time today (6 a.m. EDT, 3 a.m. PDT, June 29). The Nintendo producer will be discussing his upcoming Wii title, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.

[Ymeegod]

The combat in Okami was the one weak link to an otherwise great game IMO.  Your moveset was limited and your paintset for the minor guys was always the same set patterns so all you had to do was fight with the controls to get it right.

But the best part of Okami was the fact it was an action/adventure/ hybrid and fankly there's not to many of them.  It's similar to BG&E where fans want something other than Zelda.