@Brodehouse: It's still punishment for failure. You screwed up, you have to start over. No punishment would be to have zero penalty. Sure, it's not unfair, overly punishing or frustrating, (except the often mentioned Kid, Skyscraper and XOXO if it's bugged) but it still punishes you for your mistakes.
Worth Reading: 02/17/2012
How is it fundamentally broken? It changed it's direction to meet the wants of a wider audience. Challenge is fun, but I don't always want to hate the game I am playing, no matter how happy I feel after I beat it. It's simply another opinion that people try to hard to force as fact, when what all YOU need to do is this... If you like modern Zelda, buy Modern Zelda, if you don't, don't buy it. Fuck what everyone else says. That's why I like Giantbomb, the quicklooks give me an in-depth glimpse into the mechanics of a game, and I can decide if that is what makes it worth buying. These are just people with opinions, and like all of us, they are critics. Critics believe what they say as facts because that is how they perceive it. We all do the same. I do not care about reviews, because somebody else's opinion doesn't matter when I play a game. If I like it, that is all that I care about, and that is how I will vote for it to continue, with my dollars.
@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.
He's saying Zelda's mechanics need to be less rigid, its world needs to be more rich and imaginative, and there needs to be a lot more exploration, and the story to be stripped back (then the story needs to be told through exploration more than the "main" narrative). It is something I can agree on, while I feel like Skyward Sword did things better than any Zelda game ever, it did things a lot worse than even the original. Though I don't like Zelda II, it didn't work, but if they made it today, it has potential. Anyway, my dream Zelda would take ideas from games like Okami, Darksiders, Dark Souls, and Spelunky to build upon the various ideas in place. Like Majora's Mask, Ocarina, The Wind Waker, and Skyward Sword (even TP had some cool bits, details & ideas) all had some great things to bring to the table but, the closest thing to my ultimate Zelda is The Wind Waker.
Like take the smaller randomized dungeons from Spelunky as side mission dungeons and put them on different islands, combat from Dark Souls & Darksiders, take the atmosphere & detail from Majora's Mask, character upgrades from SS, etc. Make you feel like an adventurer over coming the adventure, learning more and more about the world. Link gets better equipment, and you get better at the game and so on with the mechanics and ideas. Too bad it feels like the Zelda devs are just unsure what to exactly do, and not going in one direction enough.
I think you've got lost in the semantics and forgot the entire point here.@Brodehouse: It's still punishment for failure. You screwed up, you have to start over. No punishment would be to have zero penalty. Sure, it's not unfair, overly punishing or frustrating, (except the often mentioned Kid, Skyscraper and XOXO if it's bugged) but it still punishes you for your mistakes.
The argument is between severe punishment as difficulty, or severe requirements for success as difficulty. The author of the article in question mentions that failure must 'chastise' and punish the player, instead of just demand they succeed. The article doesn't ask for greater requirements for success, it actually mentions that there are difficult checkpoints that require honing skill to proceed, but the article does not believe that to be good design. What the article directly asks for is greater punishment, which is ridiculous. Because the only punishment the game can foist on you is to make you suffer through gameplay you've already done. Walk through the same thing you've already completed once, just in order to reach the thing that stumped you. That is not good design ethics, that is an invitation to repetitious task agendas. That's dying to Mike Tyson and having to fight Glass Joe again. You've already beaten Glass Joe 300 times. There's no good reason for you to fight him again. The Tyson fight is challenging ... the punishment and barriers to trying again are awful.
This article sticks to one frame of mind and never lets go; it wants Zelda to be Demon's Souls. And I categorically say no. I have no problem with impossible odds, games that control well are great at higher difficulty (Super Meat Boy is the clear example). But the author wants a rogue-like; excruciating penalties for failure (all of these penalties amount to stealing the player's time and artificially stretching content out), poorly explained mechanics and systems, no narrative, no scripting, and demanding the player rely on FAQs instead of the game itself in order to complete it. Those are scarlet letters to me.
And The Kid isn't punishing at all. You have unlimited tries to beat three 30-40 second levels, with checkpoints after each one. It took me a while, but I did it. What the author of the article would prefer was that after every death I was sent back to the title screen, to waste time getting back to try again. The warp zones with only three lives, now there you might have a point.
I am very interested in literature about the history and culture of gaming. I will certainly continue to read this section.
@evanbower said:
@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.
It's a bad trend then. Not all trends should exist. First Zelda had an open world, and it was fantastic. The things they done with the NES, truly spectacular. One would hope they would try to expand on these ideas, not butcher them. You know what? The modern Zelda maps can't be called open, they're locked out. You can't go where you want to go. It's a hallway, from point A to point B. Next, I don't think (and neither does he) it "works." I mean, people like it, but that doesn't mean it's not stale. People like what they know. Hell, they still buy Mario Party games, and Mario Kart. Nintendo likes tradition, they make the same game, over and over again.
Also, they are not puzzles. You're insulting the concept of puzzles by saying that "aim this hookshot at this metal hook to go further" is a puzzle. Same as in the Batman games. Like babies, fitting the octagonal shapes into octagonal holes. Bravo, have a cookie. Match the shapes, get a cookie. Match the shapes, get a cookie. It's the same with the combat in Skyward Sword. A very simplistic premise, not very revolutionairy or mind boggling, but apparently very popular. Where's the challenge in the puzzle? They are not elaborate. Portal's gadget changes the way you think, it's difficult, there are no enormous signs telling you where the portal gun should be used. You're free to experiment, the solution is not apparent right from the start. Those things in Zelda? They are neither challenging nor smart.
I have nothing against simplistic game design, I like simple games. I like Batman too! But please, let's not beat around the bush here, it's fairly apparent that Zelda games are as stale as yesterday's doughnuts. Not to mention they are easier than... yo' momma!
...
Seriously though, Zelda's simplistic and not very interesting.
Appreciate the recommendations, Patrick.
Also, thanks for creating a nice regular feature to end the week with.
@Brodehouse: I suppose it is all about semantics. I call that punishment. A penalty set by the game for your failure. You have to repeat the part you've done dozens of times before, even if it lasts only seconds. In any case, I do like the SMB system and it works well, though I don't like how it lends itself to brute-forcing a level until you luck out. I got the Kid too but patience had more to do with it than skill of any sort, which is what I think difficulty should be about. But it's not like setting the player further back will make brute-forcing impossible, just less optimal.
I can't really argue on what the writer thinks about the difficulty issue, as I haven't played Demon's Souls or the first Zeldas. He wants Demon's Souls Zelda, old-school Zelda, but I don't know what that really means, other than a difficulty increase and focus on combat rather than bomb puzzles. Sounds good on paper, I'd probably like it, even if it went as far as roguelikes. I get why you wouldn't, though, and I agree on many of your points regarding punishing the player.
Thanks Patrick, already seems like a great feature. One more thing to look forward to out of the GB team.
I love this feature and I'm glad that it's made it into the big leagues. Also, here is an article Michael Abbott linked to that I thought was pretty good. http://www.unwinnable.com/2012/02/17/story-does-matter/
Also, I really like the idea of including neat little games you can complete in a handful of minutes like The Love Letter. That was neat.
@TwoLines said:
" Nintendo likes tradition, they make the same game, over and over again."
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and just say that there not tradionalist but they implement the same game mechanics because thats what sells. Fans expect the same features because thats what they're used to and expect from a Zelda game and since it sells like crazy, why change it? And if they were to change it, fans would cry foul.
"Ocarina of Time is certainly not the greatest game of all time (it’s not even a great Zelda)." The article was interesting but I lost respect for the guy when I read this line at the top of the page. This guy, like many others, is clearly just butthurt that consoles moved to 3D and Zelda games had to change somewhat.
That Zelda article sure was an overwrought way of saying "I like old NES Zelda games, because they're harder and more open, with less structured goals. I wish they'd make another, more exploration intensive Zelda game".
The article is very weird, almost as if the author feels there's only one way to make a good game, Ocarina and other 3D Zelda game's aren't bad because they're more structured, it's just a different way to have fun.
He should go play Skyrim, there's a lot of hidden stuff in that big open space that you don't necessarily have to be explicitly told to find. However, that's not the only way to have a fun game, or even to design a sense of exploration. There are multiple roads that lead to the destination of enjoyment.
@EPGPX: Possibly, but you can never please the fans, especially if you want innovation. However, like with Capcom and RE 4, if Nintendo delivered an amazing game, the press reviews would probably reignite the enthusiasm of everyone that is tired of the Zelda series, and the fans would still buy it. Or, you could stay where you are, and earn some money with the tired ol' formula, without taking any risks. Whoopie.
I really don't understand the love for the Zelda article, it makes huge assumptions on what Zelda games should be (even though it seem fairly clear that Nintendo disagree, & when they last attempted a game with more exploration it lead to the WW debacle) & decides anything that conflicts with said view is bad for the series (even though the 2/3 games that have had the best reception do not fit his view of the series at all). The comparison to the way the Mario series has evolved over the years is particularly poor, Mario at heart can be boiled down to three words: Run 'n' Jump, try and do the same for Zelda will lead to vastly differing answers depending on who has been asked.
It also ignores that Nintendo have released a game with huge amounts of exploration very recently( & even if SS had focussed on that it would have come up short compared to the scope of Xenoblade) & that they are perfectly comfortable releasing games offering a challenge (they asked Treasure to make S&P2 harder, SMG1/2 are also harder than much of SMS) & that Zelda is the only "main" Nintendo title(unless you count the M&L RPG's) to have any emphasis on story ( Complaining about the amount of story in SS is ludicrous, it was billed as the story of the first Link & Zelda).
Personally I would like to see Zelda become more linear, not less. A structure similar to PoP or Portal would work very well with the series as it currently is (not how it was 20 years ago), it would help with the series major problem (the pacing) & it would be easier for them to make/add areas with a higher difficulty for people who want them. Either way I just hope that they continue with the motion controls, I enjoyed them a great deal, it would be sad to see them go( I do find it funny that they finally work out a system to change items/weapons without needing to actually see a menu just before they release a console that can have a dedicated screen for that very purpose.
@AJ47 said:
I really don't understand the love for the Zelda article, it makes huge assumptions on what Zelda games should be (even though it seem fairly clear that Nintendo disagree, & when they last attempted a game with more exploration it lead to the WW debacle)
I'll stop you there...the WW debacle? As in Wind Waker? As in possibly the best game in the series apart from Ocarina and maybe Link to the Past? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The exploration was one of the best parts of that game.
The Zelda piece is super interesting to read, but it seems like he is really just criticizing modern game design in general, instead of just he Zelda series. He wants a very specific type of game that he deems is perfect. He wants an open-world game whose only narrative is in the environment, and which lets the player decide how to proceed on their own in both combat and progression.
I'm not saying he is incorrect for wanting this, but it is so specific that it makes it seem as if he has never liked any modern game. He grew up on this style of game, and it is sacred to him. But it is really hard to agree with him and not just say all modern games are trash. Maybe they have lost a little of the magic and mystery for the imagination, but much of it was due to technical limitations.
Perhaps the Zelda series is his focus because it was something beloved that has changed, and which he cannot figure out how to correct (the last couple were definitely not that great). I'm sure many would agree with his view that games were better "back in the day," but not everything that changes is for the worse. His opinions on what he enjoys are his own though. That view just seems a little narrow, with no room for divergence. I would not like to have such a specific view of what games are good, because I would not be able to enjoy any game that has come out in the last ten years. Sounds like a life full of constant disappointment. I like games too much to adopt his view.
Good feature, thanks Patrick! I hope it continues.
As for complaining about Zelda ... there's no point. George Lucas won't give us a HD version of the original trilogy, Alan Moore will never write another Superman comic and Nintendo won't push the limits of Zelda on a home console. At some point you have to just say "I loved this series, but it's not going to be what I want it to be and I can't change that".
To be fair Ocarina, Majora and Wind Waker were awesome. I loathed Twilight Princess and basically ignored the recent hand-held Zelda games. But Skyward Sword was really good, too much filler towards the end, but still a great game So yeah, take a break from the series and come back to it. It helps. And let go of what it'll never be.
@MormonWarrior said:
@AJ47 said:
I really don't understand the love for the Zelda article, it makes huge assumptions on what Zelda games should be (even though it seem fairly clear that Nintendo disagree, & when they last attempted a game with more exploration it lead to the WW debacle)
I'll stop you there...the WW debacle? As in Wind Waker? As in possibly the best game in the series apart from Ocarina and maybe Link to the Past? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The exploration was one of the best parts of that game.
WW is the only 3D Zelda I couldn't be bothered to finish(although I have never played MM), sailing the ocean was tedious & unlike TP (whose flaws are covered up by the later dungeon design) it is a clear example of style(awesome that it might be) over substance. It is interesting that the people who like WW the best are the most despondent about the series future, hopefully that will continue.
Great job, Patrick! Thank you for bringing the Zelda article to my attention. I think it is a great piece of writing, imbued with an incredible point of view.
Excellent idea! I look forward to checking this out as I gear up for the weekend. My initial reaction to your description of "Saving Zelda" made me think of Dead Homer's Society, a blog that focuses on why The Simpsons hasn't been good since it's 7th season. However, that site seems to be a lot snarkier than Tevis Thompson's piece.
Thanks Patrick.
Man those kids in the Love Letter were frustrating, though beat it on the first try with seconds left.
@AJ47 said:
@MormonWarrior said:
@AJ47 said:
I really don't understand the love for the Zelda article, it makes huge assumptions on what Zelda games should be (even though it seem fairly clear that Nintendo disagree, & when they last attempted a game with more exploration it lead to the WW debacle)
I'll stop you there...the WW debacle? As in Wind Waker? As in possibly the best game in the series apart from Ocarina and maybe Link to the Past? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The exploration was one of the best parts of that game.
WW is the only 3D Zelda I couldn't be bothered to finish(although I have never played MM), sailing the ocean was tedious & unlike TP (whose flaws are covered up by the later dungeon design) it is a clear example of style(awesome that it might be) over substance. It is interesting that the people who like WW the best are the most despondent about the series future, hopefully that will continue.
I do agree that the guy's article is total BS though. I don't think Zelda got good until Link to the Past. I love Wind Waker's style, its combat, the navigation, and pretty much everything about it except for the low difficulty level and the end-game Triforce hunt. I can understand finding it tedious I guess. I didn't like Skyward Sword or Twilight Princess much at all. I don't feel like they capture the magic or feel of Zelda at all. I wrote a blog recently about what I think about each game in the series. Check it out.
Oh man, I totally remember reading the NES Zelda instruction booklet from cover to cover. Loved the little map it had, and it practically gave you a guide for how to get to the first dungeon. Awesome stuff.
@AJ47 said:
It also ignores that Nintendo have released a game with huge amounts of exploration very recently( & even if SS had focussed on that it would have come up short compared to the scope of Xenoblade) & that they are perfectly comfortable releasing games offering a challenge (they asked Treasure to make S&P2 harder, SMG1/2 are also harder than much of SMS) & that Zelda is the only "main" Nintendo title(unless you count the M&L RPG's) to have any emphasis on story ( Complaining about the amount of story in SS is ludicrous, it was billed as the story of the first Link & Zelda).
As a general writing tip, having that many parentheses in one continuous sentence really muddles your point. For example, what was the recent game with huge amounts of exploration? On top of using less brackets, it might've helped to split that sentence into a few smaller sentences, one for each example (games with exploration, games that offer a challenge, etc.).
Just a suggestion. :)
@EmuLeader said:
The Zelda piece is super interesting to read, but it seems like he is really just criticizing modern game design in general, instead of just he Zelda series. He wants a very specific type of game that he deems is perfect. He wants an open-world game whose only narrative is in the environment, and which lets the player decide how to proceed on their own in both combat and progression.
I'm not saying he is incorrect for wanting this, but it is so specific that it makes it seem as if he has never liked any modern game. He grew up on this style of game, and it is sacred to him. But it is really hard to agree with him and not just say all modern games are trash. Maybe they have lost a little of the magic and mystery for the imagination, but much of it was due to technical limitations.
Perhaps the Zelda series is his focus because it was something beloved that has changed, and which he cannot figure out how to correct (the last couple were definitely not that great). I'm sure many would agree with his view that games were better "back in the day," but not everything that changes is for the worse. His opinions on what he enjoys are his own though. That view just seems a little narrow, with no room for divergence. I would not like to have such a specific view of what games are good, because I would not be able to enjoy any game that has come out in the last ten years. Sounds like a life full of constant disappointment. I like games too much to adopt his view.
I came to the same conclusion as well.
It's almost irrelevant that his piece focuses on Zelda, when the kind of game he's suggesting just isn't being made by anyone recently, aside from Demons' Souls and Dark Souls. Games have indeed become very story-drives-the-environment, which results in the game being very linear, because otherwise you could experience the story out of order. I think it's probably VERY hard to get a publisher to make your game, if you set out to make an environment-drives-the-story game, where there isn't any active story guiding you, and you can kinda just explore onward and try to figure things out.
Or at least, it's probably hard to pull that off with any publisher that does focus testing, because that sort of game that gives no guidance is sure to frustrate focus testers. You could probably pull it off with certain Japanese publishers, who still live in a bubble where you can just put out games without focus testing and blindly assume people will love it. Similarly, some Japanese developers aren't as much of a slave to the mighty waypoint as nearly every Western-developed game is these days.
I'm not sure where I fall on Thompson's views, but I also feel like it hardly matters. I think the general video game playing public absolutely LOVE being directed, having guided experiences, and having waypoints. The Souls games have their devoted following, but that's because they're really the only games like what Thompson wants, so they have that market completely cornered. I really question whether the market could support multiple games doing that sort of thing other than the Souls games. The market for that type of game is only so big, just like there are only a few big fighting game series left. Bethesda makes open games sort of like Thompson suggests, but even they have a fair amount of player guidance and story, though they do share a similarity with the first Zelda in that you can wander anywhere and just find stuff.
But like I said, it hardly matters. If Nintendo were to go back to basics and rewind the Zelda series, and instead try to evolve it in a different direction, they sure as hell wouldn't go all the way back to the NES entries that Thompson reveres. At best, they might wipe the slate clean of all the 3D Zeldas, and say "OK, what's another way we can take the Link to the Past experience and move it to 3D?" And that wouldn't be enough for Thompson, because even LttP is a linear experience where your progress is very obviously gated and you have to do the dungeons and get the weapons in a particular order.
Overall, his position is just incredibly idealistic, and the reality is that large-scale games won't be going back to that, especially when it appears you can make the most profit on making a game that is as close to a Hollywood blockbuster as possible.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment