the love letter game wasn't that bad. worth the five minutes it took....I guess??
Worth Reading: 02/17/2012
You've been harping this blog forever. I can't wait to finally read it.@Mento said:
As that article more or less says, it's kind of become so cookie-cutter at this point that there's so little to say about each new iteration of the same basic formula.
Wait until you see my blog on Skyward Sword :P.
@Claude:
I thought I was harping my Katawa Shoujo blog forever. In any case, you'll have to wait a while.
Just finished reading Tevis Thompsons' article on Sonic, as well as Zelda. Very compelling stuff indeed!
The Zelda game that guy is describing sounds awful. There's a reason games aren't that hard anymore. It's because I actually want to finish the games I pay for.
Awesome post. I like reading that kind of long form stuff on my ereader, so I usually make lists like these into collections. If anyone else is interested, here are the two articles:
ePub format: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12542516/Longform%20Collections/Giant%20Bomb-Worth%20Reading/GiantBomb-WorthReading-2012-02-17.epub
Kindle format: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12542516/Longform%20Collections/Giant%20Bomb-Worth%20Reading/GiantBomb-WorthReading-2012-02-17.mobi
@troticielo said:
There’s a reason Giant Bomb’s news section doesn’t have many posts each day.
Once upon a time that reason was that gb didn't have a dedicated news guy.
They had one. He just sucked.
The Zelda article was interesting, but I don't really agree with some of the points (which is fine...a good article will likely raise points I don't agree with). I did find it odd that he seems to hold Zelda II in such high regard (what I'd argue is the low point of the series, save for the Wand of Gamalon horrors that Phillips birthed upon the world in all their Lovecraftian horror and majesty). I also prefer ALTTP to the first game...I enjoy the first game...but they're very different things (much like Half-Life and Half-Life 2 are very different games).
I agree with some of his points regarding difficulty...but I think his arguments about reducing the puzzles and item-centric nature of the game miss the point. I play a Zelda game for that lovely feeling I get when I find the thing to get me to an area I saw before but couldn't get to...when I figure out HOW to get there. Now I'd agree that the Zelda games have become too linear, too constrained, that there isn't enough opportunity for sequence breaking...I'd love to see the next Zelda embrace some of the exploration elements of the first Zelda along with some of the more subtle narrative of ALTTP along with some of the other design lessons of that game.
I wouldn't mind a harder Zelda; but why Dark Souls. It seems odd that he brings up the current flavor of the week (not to knock Dark Souls...but it seems very trendy to bring up right now) as what Zelda should try to be more like. I don't think the solution for Zelda is to try and be more like anything else. I think the solution is to create a compelling experience all its own...and I don't think all of the old ideas need to be tossed out. There isn't one direction in which games evolve and are headed...we don't need every game to be Dark Souls now anymore than we needed every game to be God of War earlier or to be a Call of Duty style shooter. Zelda needs to be the best Zelda game it can be, whatever that means...but I don't think it needs to mimic Dark Souls or God of War or anything else...I'd much prefer to see designers come up with a vision for what they want to create and...well; make that. I'm not saying make the game that I demand or want...because in that world every game would end up being QuakeWorld with some DOOM2 weapons thrown in for good measure (DOOM2 SSG!)...I'm saying I want to see Nintendo put out the Zelda game they want to put out...not the one they feel they're 'supposed' to put out. Hell, I'd love to see what Retro would do with Zelda...they did some great stuff with Metroid Prime...that's still probably my favorite console game of that console generation.
Love this new feature Mr. Klepick! I'd love to see more links like the one to the Zelda article. Good stuff.
I agree with the author of the Zelda article on many points - the biggest problem the series has now is that it is not difficult in the slightest. It not only makes the game boring to play but it hurts the immersion factor, not to mention the story. How am I supposed to feel like a great hero when everything is a walk in the park?
I would also LOVE to play a Zelda designed like Dark Souls. It's not such a stretch to compare the two, because Dark Souls has much in common with the original Zelda. The main focus in both games is exploration and survival. He's right when he says that Zelda has gone from story-from-environment design (another aspect of Souls games) to environment-from-story design-- the environments in modern Zelda games, with few exceptions, would be uncompelling and essentially meaningless without context from the story.
My opinion differs when it comes to the idea that Zelda games shouldn't be story-driven, however. Particularly, I don't believe the first two games in the series are the best; in fact, I think Ocarina of Time, one of the Zeldas he is most critical of, is one of the best games ever made. I enjoy the puzzle solving and NPC interaction aspects of modern Zeldas, and I think they can coexist with the exploratory component that is so important to the franchise. Perhaps the best balance of these features can be found in Wind Waker, which had many non-essential islands to explore that still felt intriguing and exciting, all within its narrative framework.
Should even more focus be put towards exploration in future titles? I think it would be wise to do so. Make the overworlds and objectives more non-linear, and make the game difficult enough that the player has plenty of incentive to seek out treasures off the main path. And for God's sake, make rupees worth something! In this way, I think we could get the "best of both worlds" as far as classic-vs-modern design goes, and if executed correctly could give us the best Zelda game yet.
Glad to see this is gonna be a regular thing. The Love Letter was cute, and I shared it on Facebook and Twitter. The Zelda article was absolutely fascinating.
I appreciate what Patrick has done for the once-dead news section of Giant Bomb, but really, there's lots of other sites for gaming news that update every few minutes. GB is best as a personality-driven site with a critical flare over being a dedicated news site. That being said, what Patrick has done for the news on the site is astounding. this feature will be a nice addition to the site.
This article got instantly buried by the front page. Maybe it's just a sorting error or something, but this probably ought to have some degree of priority if it's going to be a regular deal.
Anything that gives the site direction is a positive in my book, doubly so if it gives the forums good stuff to talk about. Great concept, Patrick. Keep 'em coming and make sure people know about this!
As for that Zelda article...
Ocarina of Time was my first Zelda game and Majora's Mask my second. He pisses on both. I have my issues with Skyward Sword, but they're minor in detail. I tried playing Link to the Past, but found it to be too frustrating. I never even touched the first two. Basically, this guy is entitled to his opinion, but I think it sucks.
super good idea Patrick. Sunday Papers on RockPaperShotgun is one of my fav parts of the week so happy to have you do a similar idea with the GiantBomb style.
Stay awesome.
Nice feature! Liked the Zelda-article, and I must say I agree to some extent. I still enjoy the new Zelda games, and play them when I get the chance, but something has been missing in those games.. The last one that really did it for me was Majora's Mask really, and it still remains my absolute favorite in the series.
@Claude: He doesn't say bad things about Majora's Mask, he actually raises that up as one of the new ones that did something right. Together with Wind Waker.
@Aldrenar47 said:
I agree with the author of the Zelda article on many points - the biggest problem the series has now is that it is not difficult in the slightest. It not only makes the game boring to play but it hurts the immersion factor, not to mention the story. How am I supposed to feel like a great hero when everything is a walk in the park?
I would also LOVE to play a Zelda designed like Dark Souls. It's not such a stretch to compare the two, because Dark Souls has much in common with the original Zelda. The main focus in both games is exploration and survival. He's right when he says that Zelda has gone from story-from-environment design (another aspect of Souls games) to environment-from-story design-- the environments in modern Zelda games, with few exceptions, would be uncompelling and essentially meaningless without context from the story.
My opinion differs when it comes to the idea that Zelda games shouldn't be story-driven, however. Particularly, I don't believe the first two games in the series are the best; in fact, I think Ocarina of Time, one of the Zeldas he is most critical of, is one of the best games ever made. I enjoy the puzzle solving and NPC interaction aspects of modern Zeldas, and I think they can coexist with the exploratory component that is so important to the franchise. Perhaps the best balance of these features can be found in Wind Waker, which had many non-essential islands to explore that still felt intriguing and exciting, all within its narrative framework.
Should even more focus be put towards exploration in future titles? I think it would be wise to do so. Make the overworlds and objectives more non-linear, and make the game difficult enough that the player has plenty of incentive to seek out treasures off the main path. And for God's sake, make rupees worth something! In this way, I think we could get the "best of both worlds" as far as classic-vs-modern design goes, and if executed correctly could give us the best Zelda game yet.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of this. I don't share his distate for just about every 3D Zelda game, I think they were pretty good with the exception of Skyward Sword, which is linear, repetitive toss. I especially agree with him on the pacing of that game, the stop-start nature of the combat and everything being a "puzzle". I want exploration back in my Zelda, I want a big, connected world, not a bunch of small sub-zones that simply exist as a pre-dungeon. I WANT NPC interaction, as it can pull me into the world if done right (Majora's Mask is a great example). I want a sense of wonder on seeing what's on the horizon (Wind Waker did this wonderfully). And yes, some challenging combat would be nice. It doesn't quite need to be Dark Souls in terms of difficulty, but there hasn't been any skill involved in any of the 3D ones, excepting a few specific battles maybe. And Ocarina of Time is my favorite game of all time, it holds up well. The problem is that most subsequent games haven't done anything really new since that game.
But after playing Skyward Sword, I'm not sure Nintendo still knows what once made Zelda great - the sense of wonder and exploration, that it threw completely out the window in favor of "puzzles" all day long. But then all the critics ate that game up, so what do I know?
Great article! Most people probably won't agree with him, but I get it. Zelda doesn't feel like a journey. It feels like I'm just going through the motions. Very much like I do in Batman. Do this here, get this, now you can go there. Do that three more times, aaand... you're done. It's not even hard to go through these motions, it's just time conusming. For me, it's not really a game, more like a maze with short orders painted on its walls. Bombs here, grappling hook there.
Also, he makes an interesting point about the story. The modern story telling in video games forces us to follow a guideline, which is incredibly limiting, considering what the medium is capable of. I'm not saying throw it all away, but tell it in a more interesting fashion than button mashing through the sluggish dialogue boxes.
Some people like this Zelda. From A to B, a story filled with interesting gadgets, enormous bosses and exciting exploration. Only the gadgets can't be used everywhere, there's a guideline to where and how to use them. The boss fights are just big simple puzzles, much like those in Mario Galaxy (which I don't care for very much), nothing epic about them. And the exploration is a myth, more so than in other "open" games. There's a certain order to the progression, in reality, you're just looking down a long hallway filled with traps and monsters which aren't really that difficult to battle. Some people like that, I don't.
@mdnthrvst said:
@ArbitraryWater said:
a return to the first two Zelda games is asking for a return to the franchise before it truly defined itself
That's what he's saying, that the way Zelda has 'defined itself' is fundamentally broken and misguided. He's not proposing that it can be undone, just calling it out for what it is.
I just don't think there is a reasonable way to back that up though, considering the game which now defines what Zelda is also largely defined what 3D games are. You can always look back and see what was lost from the old games, but the article seems to suggest what was lost outweighs what was gained.. and the only way the argument can hold together within the text is by completely ignoring this part of the debate.
Loved the Zelda article...I was actually impatiently reading at some point. Thinking " If this is what he really wants, what does he think about demon souls/dark souls then?" That paid off by the end.
Of course he doest't think Zelda should be Demon Souls people! So stop getting your panties in a wad. It's just that the possibility of what he asks might be there after all. Specially after taking Mario into consideration.
@evanbower said:
@mdnthrvst said:
@ArbitraryWater said:
a return to the first two Zelda games is asking for a return to the franchise before it truly defined itself
That's what he's saying, that the way Zelda has 'defined itself' is fundamentally broken and misguided. He's not proposing that it can be undone, just calling it out for what it is.
I just don't think there is a reasonable way to back that up though, considering the game which now defines what Zelda is also largely defined what 3D games are. You can always look back and see what was lost from the old games, but the article seems to suggest what was lost outweighs what was gained.. and the only way the argument can hold together within the text is by completely ignoring this part of the debate.
Tell me, what did Ocarina define? What is he missing? You're saying he's ignoring "this" without stating what "it" is. You're just saying it changed the rules in some way, that it provided a template to how things "should" be done. So how? Remember, we're not talking about how a 3D game should be controlled, we're talking about pacing, difficulty and game design.
Great article Patrick. I enjoyed reading this with my Saturday morning breakfast. I look forward to more.
It seems to have sparked a debate in this thread about what people want to see in their games (in this case Zelda). We all play games to have fun. This is a deceptively simple statement as it begs the question of what an individual finds to be fun. Some people love games that have rock hard difficulty, they find it very rewarding to overcome arduous obstacles. On the other hand, there are those that prefer easier games because they enjoy becoming an overlord of the populace etc. I'm sure that designers constantly scratch their heads on pitching game difficulty at what they hope is the right level. Too easy and it quickly becomes boring, too hard and it quickly becomes frustrating. I realise I am painting relatively broad strokes here but it seems to be an underlying aspect of the discussion. Plus I cannot really comment on specific issues of the Zelda games as I have never played any (never owned any Nintendo devices until the DS).
As for the comments about Giant Bomb itself. I love that the site "cherry picks" its coverage focusing on what matters and creating quality content as a result. They are transparent about their tastes and this represents what you can expect to see here. Rather than spreading themselves too thin to cover everything no matter how trivial and shitty the subject, which some of the bigger sites appear to do. Other sites' video content can also be too glossy and polished with zero personality which really puts me off. I think they have found a niche here with focused and community driven content.
I played that Love Letter game twice and ended up failing both times. I'm not a craftsman who blames his tools but the controls in that game are awful (especially on a laptop touch pad). So now I'm too angry to try again.
Which is why I just don't buy in to the Zelda argument that extreme punishment leads to extreme rewards. That's completely backwards. Games should be difficult, they should not be punishing. The reason Super Meat Boy is one of the greatest platformers is that every stage is 20-30 seconds, and it doesn't punish the player whatsoever. It makes the stages difficult, and everything around playing the game to be completely easy. Taking away all the stuff you've spent hours earning because of a stupid death (especially an experimental one) is absolutely frustrating and no one except people who need something to brag about are going to play that game.
I'd rather a dungeon where it checkpointed at every room, but every battle or dangerous encounter required you to be on it and know the systems well, than a dungeon with average difficulty in combat but any death sends you back to the title screen. Everyone here has checkpoints in games that were super difficult for them (the first Theron Guards encounter in Gears on Hardcore was too much for me to do solo, the Collector's Ship level in Mass Effect 2 on Insanity is almost famous), and people bang their heads against it until they get it. But games that just steal your time and make you replay through the same content (content that you 'beat' several times) is just pure padding the length on the back of the box.
I actually think that's an important distinction to make. I played through the original Resident Evil last year and finished while dying about 3-4 times. If I had died ten times more I would've quit easily, because each one of those deaths is 10-15 minutes or more of time lost. And then I played through Resident Evil 4. I died 62 times (it tells you at the end). Can you imagine dying 62 times in any of those old games? People don't even die that often in Demon's Souls. And I still ended up finishing that game in about 16 hours. That's what modern games have done right; higher difficulty, lower punishment.
@Brodehouse said:
Which is why I just don't buy in to the Zelda argument that extreme punishment leads to extreme rewards. That's completely backwards.
That is not the argument being made. It's about not making games feel like a chore. In the end nobody enjoys an experience, easy or not, if it's just going through the motions. Did you read the article by the way, or just the quote ?
Yeah, I don't think you could play that love letter game with a laptop touch pad...
the first zelda game is tough, i found the first dungeon and thats it. had no idea where to go and exploring is an absolute bitch because you are swamped by enemies everywhere you go. and you are really given absolutely ZERO hints or where to place bombs to find hidden areas etc. etc.
while in later zeldas your hand is held a little too tightly and enemies pose little to no threat. sooo easy to defeat. and the whole process does become a bit of chore.
i think there needs to a balance between both extremes. Even though he gives Link to the past and Ocarina a bunch of shit I think the future zelda games should try to be like these two.
@Brodehouse: Death is punishment. If there's no punishment, there's no difficulty, and you reach Prince of Persia 2008 and beyond. SMB is punishing because the smallest mistakes will kill you and return you to the beginning of the level.
In any case, I'm loving the essays and hope stuff like them will come up in later Worth Readings(?).
This is a good idea, it'll be great to read these and then have something to discuss over the weekend.
@TwoLines said:
@evanbower said:
@mdnthrvst said:
@ArbitraryWater said:
a return to the first two Zelda games is asking for a return to the franchise before it truly defined itself
That's what he's saying, that the way Zelda has 'defined itself' is fundamentally broken and misguided. He's not proposing that it can be undone, just calling it out for what it is.
I just don't think there is a reasonable way to back that up though, considering the game which now defines what Zelda is also largely defined what 3D games are. You can always look back and see what was lost from the old games, but the article seems to suggest what was lost outweighs what was gained.. and the only way the argument can hold together within the text is by completely ignoring this part of the debate.
Tell me, what did Ocarina define? What is he missing? You're saying he's ignoring "this" without stating what "it" is. You're just saying it changed the rules in some way, that it provided a template to how things "should" be done. So how? Remember, we're not talking about how a 3D game should be controlled, we're talking about pacing, difficulty and game design.
Well first off, he complains that the openness of the world in Zelda is illusory, but doesn't mention this is a trend in the majority of games and is a compromise made to benefit the story. Also, I don't see the merit in arguing that Ocarina doesn't truly have an open world when it was made before "open world" was a term we used. He writes, "Modern Zeldas do not offer worlds. They offer elaborate contraptions reskinned with a nature theme, a giant nest of interconnected locks. A lock is not only something opened with a silver key. A grapple point is a lock; a hookshot is the key," as if the validity of that criticism is self-evident. But to me he is describing what defines Zelda, and why (to varying degrees) it works. The games are about puzzles, and whether in a dungeon or exploring Hyrule, your progress depends on figuring out how things are working around you. Elaborate contraptions are the game. The puzzles aren't a contrivance to make the world they've created a game, the world is a venue for enjoying the puzzles.
Awesome - the more articles, the better, especially if they introduce me to cool new stuff.
Also, the first entry makes me think GB needs a dedicated indie feature, similar to this. There are other sites that specialize in indie games, but they are niche and exclusively for people looking for indie games. I think the big sites (IGN, GS, GB) need to do their part to spread the influence of this new-ish sector of the video games industry - I'm sure they could use it.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment