Worth Reading: 02/17/2012

How did I miss this all weekend? I'm totally checking out those games later!

Nice! Books finally infiltrate Whiskey Media... next step is the new website 'Booked'

Breaking News!!

I've just checked out Invasion of the Space invaders from the new york public library its being delieverd to me as we speack!!

So glad I checked out the love letter thanks to this article. I look forward to this feature continuing!

@BisonHero said:

@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. :)

Its a fair point, I am a huge fan of footnotes & I end up using parentheses in the same way as I would them, which makes it a bit harder to read.(btw, Xenoblade is the game with huge amounts of exploration)

The hyperbole in that Zelda article is palpable. The author forgets (or has never acknowledged) that people change and their tastes change. It's not wrong for him to dislike the newer Zelda entries and yearn for the ones of his youth, but sitting back and saying they're objectively incorrect is playing in to a predetermined bias. They're different and we can acknowledge they're different, but that difference can be good depending on personal taste. The article is well written, for the most part, but heavily relies on "I'm the only sane one left!!!" paranoid horseshit.

How did I miss this all weekend? I'm totally checking out those games later!

@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) & 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.

You should read some of his other posts. Pretty interesting stuff. My read of his thoughts is that Mario succeeds precisely BECAUSE it can be boiled down to the "jump". Whether in 2D, flat 3D, or jumping on/around little planetoids, the beating core of Mario is always strong. Even looking at the various Mario RPGs, it's always that famous Mario leap that sets him apart. You come across a character suspicious of who you really are, and what's the only valid response? To jump, of course.

I think it's important for Nintendo to figure out that same boiled down, beating core of the Zelda experience. What is it that makes a Zelda game a Zelda game? Is it the story (Triforce, Zelda, etc.)? Is it the items (Master Sword, Boomerang, Bombs)? When you think back to the very first Zelda you played, what is the thing that hooked you?

I'd argue that it's exploration. Not just exploration in the spatial sense of having an open world. But also (or maybe rather) for exploring the possibility of different solutions to situations. The modern Zelda's are about figuring out the one exact solution to how the designer wanted you to solve the puzzle/proceed to the next area. To be certain, there's plenty of fun to be had from that. But the 2D Zeldas are more ambiguous, with the original being VERY open.

My first Zelda was LttP. I've tried going back to the NES games and just did not really enjoy them. From a modern perspective those games are TOO open. I think LttP does a better job of toeing that fine line. You are free to explore literally anywhere but the game passively constrains you and nudges you in the right direction. You CAN take dungeons out of order but it's much more difficult. You can get items before you're "supposed" to get them.

The newer Zeldas are the result of the necessities of 3D, the whims of the modern audience, and constrained by tradition. Each one has its lovers and its haters. I just want to be WOWed by a Zelda game again, like I was with LttP and again with Ocarina. I just finished Skyward Sword, and while it's probably the best Zelda since Ocarina, it's still has too many flaws. The nagging of Fi, the tiresome text, the fact that a big chunk of the game feels like padding.

I know it's possible for modern games to evoke that child-like sense of wonder again. Mario did it with Galaxy. Can Zelda do it too?

@Dodongo said:

You should read some of his other posts. Pretty interesting stuff. My read of his thoughts is that Mario succeeds precisely BECAUSE it can be boiled down to the "jump". Whether in 2D, flat 3D, or jumping on/around little planetoids, the beating core of Mario is always strong. Even looking at the various Mario RPGs, it's always that famous Mario leap that sets him apart. You come across a character suspicious of who you really are, and what's the only valid response? To jump, of course.

I think it's important for Nintendo to figure out that same boiled down, beating core of the Zelda experience. What is it that makes a Zelda game a Zelda game? Is it the story (Triforce, Zelda, etc.)? Is it the items (Master Sword, Boomerang, Bombs)? When you think back to the very first Zelda you played, what is the thing that hooked you?

I'd argue that it's exploration. Not just exploration in the spatial sense of having an open world. But also (or maybe rather) for exploring the possibility of different solutions to situations. The modern Zelda's are about figuring out the one exact solution to how the designer wanted you to solve the puzzle/proceed to the next area. To be certain, there's plenty of fun to be had from that. But the 2D Zeldas are more ambiguous, with the original being VERY open.

My first Zelda was LttP. I've tried going back to the NES games and just did not really enjoy them. From a modern perspective those games are TOO open. I think LttP does a better job of toeing that fine line. You are free to explore literally anywhere but the game passively constrains you and nudges you in the right direction. You CAN take dungeons out of order but it's much more difficult. You can get items before you're "supposed" to get them.

The newer Zeldas are the result of the necessities of 3D, the whims of the modern audience, and constrained by tradition. Each one has its lovers and its haters. I just want to be WOWed by a Zelda game again, like I was with LttP and again with Ocarina. I just finished Skyward Sword, and while it's probably the best Zelda since Ocarina, it's still has too many flaws. The nagging of Fi, the tiresome text, the fact that a big chunk of the game feels like padding.

I know it's possible for modern games to evoke that child-like sense of wonder again. Mario did it with Galaxy. Can Zelda do it too?

I think you may have misunderstood me on the subject of Mario, I agree that the essence of Mario can be boiled down to running & jumping & that is why reinventions of Mario are successful. The problem withapplying that logic to Zelda is that no such essence exists (outside of a Link going on an adventure, & after SS I would love to see a prequel without him) therefore some people will always decry the direction a new game will take. As for my personal opinion, before SS I would have said the items (One of my major worries about SS prior to playing it was the lack of the Boomerang), the dungeons & the weird characters, after SS only the latter 2 are important to me( I'm not trying to suggest that Zelda games shouldn't have items, just that what those particular items are is unimportant)

As for the padding, I hear this a lot(usually in relation to the stealth mechanics in SS) & I don't really understand it. Since OoT Zelda games have had stealth sections in them (even if they didn't why can't Zelda games have new mechanics added?) & SS's at the very least were better integrated than in any prior game. The only section that didn't fit was the tadtones, & even that would have been fine if they had have been able to come up with a realistic justification for that task.

As far as that "child-like sense of wonder" only a few games have managed that this gen for me(Wii Sports, SMG, SMB, Batman:AA & Vanquish) so I think you have overly high expectations.

Great stuff - enjoyed The Love Letter.

Keep up the good work, Patrick!

Great read.

Thanks for the link to the Zelda essay! Though I don't agree with everything he says (let's be serious here: Zelda II hasn't aged well at all, and was pretty bad to begin with), he knows exactly how the games ought to be. It's too bad that most of the people buying Zelda games these days are too young to handle the increase in difficulty he suggests. I have a feeling that a lot of the old action-adventure nuts who loved the original game so much are all playing Arkham City.