• 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by posh (530 posts) -

a bunch of people talk now about how the zelda franchise is getting tired, and the same formula just isn't doing it for them anymore (all of the giant bomb staff included) but I feel like I'm in the minority now by thinking that the games are just as good as they always have been.

there have been 5 fully fledged console 3D zelda games now, and none of them felt like iterations to me. the "formula" consists of several dungeons in a few areas, sword-based combat and collecting items to progress and enter new areas. the stories might be iterative, but they're still pretty interesting and fleshed out each time. I would be happy playing a zelda like skyward sword or twilight princess every 3 years or so, and if nintendo kept up the standards they would probably be amongst my favourite games each time.

I cannot stand FPS games anymore, and for me it doesn't get any more iterative than that. no matter what story hooks have been built around it, unless it's a landmark call of duty 4, halo or gears of war, I just do not care for that gameplay anymore. nintendo seems to get a lot more flak for iterating on its own zelda franchise but for all the depth of gameplay and environments those games have, I really don't understand why.

I understand that they're still well received critically, but consensus among a lot of games writers and "the internet" seems to be that they want the franchise dead. I'm not here to argue, I'm genuinely interested as to what make these games less appealing than any other game that can be pigeon-holed into a genre

#2 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5818 posts) -

I'm with you man.

It's weird that they get so much flak for not "innovating" when really, nearly every game in the series feels so unique.

#3 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3823 posts) -

The only thing I hate is the long stretches of dull tutorials in the first (couple of!) hours and the long expository dialogue from "companion" characters like Phi. Maybe I'd prefer a higher difficulty too (combat AND puzzles). But I still enjoy the main formula.

#4 Posted by xyzygy (10078 posts) -

I agree. I think every single 3D Zelda game has done something differently and they all stand apart. I think they are all excellent and I actually think Skyward Sword is the best Zelda. I cannot realte at all with people who somehow think the games are getting tired. I simply cannot understand that.

#5 Posted by EXTomar (4947 posts) -

"Zelda Fatigue" isn't exclusive to this series where it is treating the situation as "No this is an exciting new thing" but then the end result is the same thing again.

Given today's tech I would love to see the whole Legend of Zelda in other situations. What we need is a modern Zelda 2 to help "shake things up".

#6 Edited by Nivash (241 posts) -

I think it's a reaction to the fact that Nintendo hasn't really reinvented Zelda since The Ocarina of Time. Like you say it's basically the same in each title: start out peacefully in some remote village; plot intervenes to get you to the first dungeon; travel across a semi-open world to other dungeons to collect McGuffin pieces; encounter Zelda along the way at some point and face off against Ganondorf; the end.

The only real way they spice it up is with how they change the "hub" world. In Majora's Mask it was with the timer, in Wind Waker the ocean, in Twilight Princess Dark World (which wasn't that different from A Link to the Past or even Ocarina of Time to be honest) and finally in Skyward Sword the sky. The problem is that gameplay-wise you adapt to this very quickly after which it is the same-old, same-old with the dungeon crawling. Combat is basically unchanged, puzzles are very formulaic for the most part, the art style appears to occupy a spectrum in between OoT and WW and even small things - like the lack of any real spoken dialogue - remains a consistent stylistic choice. The last three titles are also hampered by the fact that they are running on Gamecube-equivalent hardware which makes the similarities between the three even more obvious.

The games are still great and the reason that the fatigue isn't as outspread is probably testament to both that fact and that Nintendo make a point of not releasing them back to back. But it has got to the point where "Zelda: Ocarina of Time Style" has basically become a sub-genre in and of itself, consisting only of post-OoT Zelda games.

For a lot of people, like you, this is not a problem. That is a good thing: the more happy gamers, the better. But for some the similarities lead to the type of fatigue that you yourself suffer from in regards to FPSs - feeling that the formula is played out and can't offer any really new experiences anymore.

As for why Nintendo gets flack, I'd say that they actually get a lot of slack if anything. Every company that releases a game in a franchise that has gone beyond a trilogy gets flack if they don't reinvent it drastically, with few exceptions. There aren't really any Zelda haters out there - not the way there are CoD haters, Battlefield haters, Assassins Creed haters or general Activision and EA haters.

#7 Edited by Romination (2777 posts) -

I don't understand it mostly because there's so much time between each game. We've had what, 4 Gears games in the span of one console cycle, and 5 3D Zelda games since the Nintendo 64. And with such crazy differences to gameplay as were in Wind Waker, Majora's Mask, and Skyward Sword, to say they're all just rehashes of Ocarina is doing them all a disservice.

I can kind of understand that someone might get bored about the fact that the 8-dungeon, "get a weapon and use it to solve puzzles and defeat the boss" mechanic has been used since the very first game, but if it didn't do that... would it be a Zelda game? And since they're always coming up with new ideas for it, is it really that bad to have it like that? I could understand if maybe we revisited the same dungeon in every game, but we don't. It's always something new. What would they want to make it different? Would they really be able to revitalize the franchise by just giving it a different aesthetic, like sci-fi or something? I've certainly heard it suggested that that's the case...

#8 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@posh said:

but I feel like I'm in the minority now by thinking that the games are just as good as they always have been.

Same here. Hell, I consider Skyward Sword to be one of the better entries in the series (love the atmosphere). Then again, I am of the opinion that Zelda fatigue is a self-inflicted illness, sort of like this.

#9 Edited by ElixirBronze (447 posts) -

The worst part of the Nintendo flac in my opinion, is the people saying "OMG Wii U sucks so bad, why is Nintendo even making hardware anymore?". What they don't see is how important Nintendo is to the overall evolution of video game interactivity. I don't need to list all the things they introduced that other people have aped through the years, things that has become standard now. If they gave up, who would push anything forward? Sony or Microsoft sure as hell won't, they can't innovate for shit. When their consoles stop making them money they'll probably just go 'Eh, fuck it, let's focus on something else instead' like Sony has with the PS Vita or what Microsoft did with Windows Phone 8 (right? I mean what happened with that?). Sony and Microsoft are so huge that they can afford to drop something, but Nintendo has to innovate to stay alive.

Therefore the attitude 'Fuck nintendo and their childish waving stuff, can't they just die already?' is stupid, video gaming will just come to a stall and we'll be stuck with the same shit forever.

I realize I probably sound like some douchebag Nintendo fanboy, but I'm really not. I don't even have a Wii U and I'm not super into zelda and whatnot either, I just think Nintendo is the most important company out of the three for the continuing development of the industry.

#10 Posted by frankfartmouth (1018 posts) -

I don't think it's so much people getting sick of Zelda because it's stale so much as people getting sick of Nintendo and their whole brand of games. Most of the people I know personally who say Zelda has gotten old are quite pleased to pick up the latest iteration of CoD, which recycles gameplay elements quite happily. I mean c'mon, Black Ops II hasn't exactly reinvented the shooter wheel, as good as it is.

If you're sick of it, you're sick of it. It's just that the whole argument against gameplay repetition is usually pretty one-sided and hypocritical.

With that aside, yeah, Nintendo pumps out too many Zeldas, and too many Marios anymore too. Their system sellers are definitely overexposed right now. Not a good thing.

#11 Posted by Winternet (8055 posts) -

I'm kinda fatigued of people talking about Zelda fatigue, in all honesty.

#12 Edited by YI_Orange (1172 posts) -

As someone who would not consider himself a fan of zelda since first playing Link to the Past back in the 90s, and not finishing a Zelda game since, here's my perspective.

My problem isn't exactly the lack of evolution of the games when compared to each other, but when compared to what else there is. At this point, I honestly do not understand the draw of Zelda. The plots and characters may as well not exist. Sure, you could say the same thing about something like Dark Souls(my number 2 game of 2011 right behind Bastion). I just feel the world of Zelda isn't interesting. There's some neat, fun things in there, but I never really felt immersed or a need to go forward.

The Gameplay. If I want something for gameplay, Zelda is not where I'm going to go. It just doesn't feel engaging.

I guess, my feelings on it boil down to feeling like Zelda falls short everywhere in comparison to something else. Sure, the whole may be greater than the sum of it's parts, but the whole is still not all that enticing. Mind you, I don't think they're bad games, I just don't find them to be engaging on any level.

edit - @frankfartmouth I hope not. That's a very short sighted way to look at things. Being bored of Mario is pretty silly in my opinion considering how many different Marios there are. The platformers? Sure, I consider myself pretty tired of them too, but 3D land was a brilliant game. From there you have the Paper Series which has made me incredibly sad, but if they put out another Thousand Year Door I would be delighted. The Mario & Luigi games are great from what I've played, but every time I start on one I get side tracked. A good game is a good game.

#13 Edited by oraknabo (1514 posts) -

While I liked the last couple OK, they were still pretty big disappointments. I'm still a big fan of Wind Waker and the last Zelda I really loved was Phantom Hourglass.

The fatigue thing is weird though--I can still go back and play any console Zelda through Wind Waker and completely enjoy it from beginning to end, but I got tired of both Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword before I was even a third through. I ended up finishing both, but don't see myself going back through either one.

I think part of the negativity around the series is simply a fear that Nintendo is just going to keep putting out new ones every few years and they are never going to learn how to make a game as great as the old ones. Maybe every future Zelda will be a decent game worth the money you spend on it, but even having a lot of average games in a series can dilute the greatness of the good ones.

One problem I've seen is that while Nintendo seems to react to their audience, they seem to only listen to the loudest, most obnoxious fans. They seem to have made Twilight Princess only as a reaction to people whining about Wind Waker. When people weren't satisfied with that, the tried to make Skyward Sword as a compromise between the two. I think neither of these approaches were anywhere near as good as the bold stuff they did with Wind Waker. I think there are some great, well-reasoned criticisms of the series out there that Nintendo should be paying more attention to than the shouts of angry mobs.

I liked the controls OK in Skyward Sword, but I'm kind of afraid that Nintendo now thinks they can never make another console Zelda without motion controls. I liked some things from Twilight Princess like the mounted combat in Hyrule field and the fishing was decent, but I have very few strong memories from playing either game.

The things I remember best about the older Zeldas is the feeling of exploring a huge world and the sense of adventure they communicate. In the newer titles, I feel like I'm running through a checklist of tasks that I have to complete to get to the end of the game.

#14 Posted by posh (530 posts) -

I guess the crux of my argument is that I don't think zelda is iterative to a great extent at all. yeah, you can boil it down to

@nivash said:

start out peacefully in some remote village; plot intervenes to get you to the first dungeon; travel across a semi-open world to other dungeons to collect McGuffin pieces; encounter Zelda along the way at some point and face off against Ganondorf; the end.

but that's really boiling down those 35-40 hours of unique gameplay you get out of those bits in between. I can't remember playing a zelda game and thinking "oh, this again?" whereas I distinctly remember feeling that a few times in the 12 hours of bioshock infinite I played

#15 Posted by DoctorWelch (2765 posts) -

Everything since the N64 Zelda games have largely been a dissapointment. Wind Waker, although beautiful, is a really plodding and simple game when it comes down to playing it. It's also an extremely short game if it wasn't for the awfully tiresome sailing that takes an immense amount of time. The dungeons are short and simplistic to a fault, and the game just doesn't do anything new or interesting outside of art style.

I would actually say Twilight Princess is the best of the games released after the N64. I would describe it as a lesser version of Ocarina of Time with a decent twist with the whole wolf form. I'm really not sure why everyone dislikes Twilight Princess so much. Especially when compared to Wind Wake and Skyward Sword, Twilight Princess is a much more fun game to simply play. The pacing is nice and the game doesn't feel overly simplistic. which brings us to the aforementioned Skyward Sword.

Skyward Sword is a game that I give Nintendo a lot of credit for because it seems like they tried to make it a bit different, but the introduction of upgrades and strict motion controls really takes away from the game rather than adding something more exciting and interesting. Not to mention, replacing Epona with a boat or a bird that actually makes the game more tedious is not a wanted improvement in the Zelda games. Skyward Sword makes it seem like Nintendo knows it needs to try something different, but I'm not sure it really knows how. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place with making new games that feel different, while also keeping enough of the character and identity that the series has built over the years.

It's not necessarily that the games after the N64 are bad, it's more that they are simply mediocre with little improvements and many major regressions. I've enjoyed them, but they don't even come close to touching the fun I had with Ocarina of Time. I know that isn't a fair comparison, but when making new games in the franchise it's a comparison that is going to be made regardless.

#16 Edited by StarFoxA (5163 posts) -

I love every game in the series but I can totally understand if people are sick of it.

#17 Posted by Brodehouse (10129 posts) -

12th year of Zelda fatigue for me. And yet I think LTTP is maybe the greatest single game ever made.

I think it was just Nitendo fatigue in general, around the GameCube.

#18 Posted by casper_ (908 posts) -

i agree that the games are still excellent but its hard to deny that they follow a very similar formula to the one originated in OoT. that was 1998! how many other series/genres have remained virtually untouched for that long? i mean i understand that is a testament to success of the original formula but by now it kind of feels to me like the gaming world is kind of passing zelda by, while it used to be on the edge of innovation.

that said i have no idea what you could do to a zelda game to make it completely fresh. i think the handheld stuff has been the most promising the last couple years, so maybe LTTP2 is gonna flip it on its head or something.

#19 Posted by EXTomar (4947 posts) -

Do you know what could be exciting and interesting? That idea (featured in various places) where Link and Zelda flip their roles. Let them make a game that is really the "Legend of Zelda". Beyond the thematic pieces, using Zelda as the main character also frees the designer from the classic "sword and board" combat where her action would be more arcane than physical and could open up encounter designs.

#20 Edited by BisonHero (7041 posts) -
@nivash said:
The problem is that gameplay-wise you adapt to this very quickly after which it is the same-old, same-old with the dungeon crawling. Combat is basically unchanged, puzzles are very formulaic for the most part, the art style appears to occupy a spectrum in between OoT and WW and even small things - like the lack of any real spoken dialogue - remains a consistent stylistic choice. The last three titles are also hampered by the fact that they are running on Gamecube-equivalent hardware which makes the similarities between the three even more obvious.

The games are still great and the reason that the fatigue isn't as outspread is probably testament to both that fact and that Nintendo make a point of not releasing them back to back. But it has got to the point where "Zelda: Ocarina of Time Style" has basically become a sub-genre in and of itself, consisting only of post-OoT Zelda games.

Yeah, pretty much this. The fact that the combat has stayed so similar is a real bummer to me. Granted, lock-on targeting is a pretty good idea and all, but seriously, the combat from Ocarina of Time all the way through Twilight Princess is functionally identical except that they added an alright parry-counter thing in Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.

I know it would be a huge departure, but would it be so much to ask that the series stop sucking the Master Sword's dick, and actually allow Link to use a primary weapon other than a sword and shield? Ya know, like nearly any other fantasy adventure game made in the past 5 years? It doesn't have to be as brutally difficult or obtuse, but Zelda could really take a page out of Dark Souls' playbook in terms of how that game has different weapon styles and magic use and everything. Also, I think the way that Link climbs, jumps, and traverses the world is still quite stiff and limited, when you have things like Sly Cooper/InFamous, Assassin's Creed, Arkham Asylum, and so on. It's not quite the same type of open world game, but the way Link climbs up vines and ledges and stuff just look wooden and terrible.

It just feels like Nintendo isn't looking outward whatsoever as to how any other game is doing 3rd-person fantasy combat and fantasy worlds, and just keeps taking Ocarina of Time as a starting point for each Zelda design document and then tweaking a few things. It is literally its own subgenre, and yes, each game is an improvement over the last, but it is advancing at a glacial rate because it's like Nintendo lives in a bubble dimension where they are oblivious to any good games made by anyone else. The games control like a really good update to Ocarina of Time, but that still means they just give this overwhelming sense of being behind and old-fashioned compared to most recent 3rd-person games I've played.

But Nintendo seems pretty intent to make every Zelda constantly for a new generation of 5-10 year-olds for whom it is their first Zelda, and children that young aren't bored of "guy with sword and shield saves the princess, yay". Seriously, it's the only explanation for why the game tutorializes itself THAT MUCH, when it has played the same for over a decade and is pretty simple to begin with. So any complaints made by someone over the age of 10 seem to fall on deaf ears at Nintendo.

@romination said:

I can kind of understand that someone might get bored about the fact that the 8-dungeon, "get a weapon and use it to solve puzzles and defeat the boss" mechanic has been used since the very first game, but if it didn't do that... would it be a Zelda game?

My issue is that that wasn't really a thing since the first game, and really only started in earnest in Ocarina of Time. In original Zelda and Link to the Past, while some bosses did require a specific weapon, there were plenty you could just slash the fuck out of with the sword, or use various projectile and magic weapons on. Ocarina of Time made the bosses more cinematic, but also mind them mindnumbingly easy and formulaic, because every fucking boss is just "stun with newly acquired weapon, then deal actual damage with sword, and inexplicably no other weapon really does anything to the boss". Majora's Mask somewhat subverts that throughout, oddly enough, because that game is crazy and awesome, yo.

#21 Edited by Nivash (241 posts) -

@posh: Well yeah, it's just pointing out that for years you have been able to predict the main plot even before the game itself was announced. People who are very story focused and like to be surprised will obviously be a bit put off by this, which could lead to fatigue. If you're a fan this doesn't matter: there's a reason Bond movies still sell well despite essentially using the same exact plot for 40 odd years for instance. Like Zelda, the movies find a way to fill the action that the plot frames in a way that feels sufficiently fresh to entertain. But not everyone is a fan.

And this isn't strictly necessary. There's nothing that says that Zelda has to follow that mold plot wise - you can easily change it up and still produce something that is both excellent and recognizably Zelda. You don't even have to be dramatic about it: here's a few things that spring to mind:

How you relate to the main character. Sure, Zelda follows the ancient formula for a growing-up adventure story: innocent boy faces harsh world, adapts, emerges victorious. But does it have to be like that every time? How about changing it up a little - maybe allow the player to start off at the middle of the adventure, with a Link already in full hero mode with a full game still ahead of him, with the game piecing together the puzzle of Links past as you play. A bit like the first Witcher game. Or a Link that has already emerged victorious and tries to find ways to adapt back to civilian life, only to be dragged right into a new adventure that proves that he wasn't as all-powerful as he thought he was. Majora's Mask came close to this by reusing the OoT Link but largely skimped out of it by going the classic way of stripping him of his equipment (and using child-Link to begin with) Maybe give the player the chance to actually play as Zelda - it's a pity Wand of Gamalon is to this day the only Zelda game to do this - even if it's only as a prelude?

None of these are original ideas, but they would still be enough to change up the usual way of doing business in interesting ways.

Or you could do it gameplay wise: how about foregoing the usual Metroidvania approach and going open world? Allowing you to take on the dungeons in any order you want but where doing them in a certain order can make it more difficult or easier to do so, like in Mega Man. That would certainly allow for multiple playthroughs. Or maybe going the Bethesda way of keeping a linear main storyline but going open world which allows you to flesh out Hyrule in a way never seen before. This was actually one of my favorite things about Wind Waker: that feeling of freedom and adventure on the open seas with lots of small islands with optional hidden secrets to explore, or at least the feeling that it was that way. In no small part due to technical limitations the islands were rather bare-bone, after all.

#22 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

The series could use a reboot similar to how Metroid Prime was done.

#23 Edited by moffattron9000 (353 posts) -

When you think Nintendo and their core franchises (bar maybe Pokemon), you think of some of the greatest games that keep raising the bar to previously unimaginable levels. While this has it's obvious advantages; when it misses the target in the slightest it seems like a disappointment. Compare that with the first four console Zelda's which went; most open game ever for it's audience at the time, sidescroller which went in some interesting ways, refinement of the first game that did things never seen before, and conversion of the general LTTP format into 3D that also defined many of the key conventions of 3D gameplay. When everything else seems like the format of Ocarina of Time format with added refinements and less experimentation, a sense of fatigue can build for some people. That being said there is an element of panic, especially with Nintendo doubling down on key franchises to a degree unseen in most other companies.

#24 Edited by posh (530 posts) -

@extomar said:

Do you know what could be exciting and interesting? That idea (featured in various places) where Link and Zelda flip their roles. Let them make a game that is really the "Legend of Zelda". Beyond the thematic pieces, using Zelda as the main character also frees the designer from the classic "sword and board" combat where her action would be more arcane than physical and could open up encounter designs.

I'm actually completely down with this, and I'd be pretty bummed out if they don't do something similar at some point. even to have you play as both Link and Zelda would be pretty cool, like you should've been able to in Wind Waker.

drastic gameplay changes is something I don't want happening to zelda games though, even as someone who can only get a fix from a strategy, rhythm or fighting game now. as long as each game has its one unique hook I'll keep coming back for more. I'm sure a majority of nintendo's potential market feels the same way

#25 Posted by Nictel (2438 posts) -

Skyward sword is the first Zelda I haven't finished. Take that as you will.

#26 Posted by posh (530 posts) -

@nivash: yeah, everything you propose here seems decent enough and I wouldn't be adverse to any of these being implemented. I think nintendo actually hinted at the next game being open world too. I can definitely see them taking that Wind Waker-style approach and filling it out with more content. the only frontier they haven't approached yet is SPACE. here's hoping the next zelda is set in space.

#27 Edited by BisonHero (7041 posts) -

@sathingtonwaltz said:

The series could use a reboot similar to how Metroid Prime was done.

Pretty much. Retro Studios (circa 2001) should basically enter some time loop where they inexplicably have the time to make Metroid, Zelda, and I dunno, Star Fox, because Nintendo sure as fuck doesn't know what to do with those franchises, so they're instead either keeping them basically unchanged (Zelda) or desperately shopping them out to other developers (Metroid, Star Fox, F-Zero).

It's too bad that Retro Studios isn't quite the same team now as it was 10 years ago (no studio is), as I know some of their better talent left to join Armature Studio and 343 Industries.

#28 Posted by BisonHero (7041 posts) -

@posh said:

@nivash: yeah, everything you propose here seems decent enough and I wouldn't be adverse to any of these being implemented. I think nintendo actually hinted at the next game being open world too. I can definitely see them taking that Wind Waker-style approach and filling it out with more content. the only frontier they haven't approached yet is SPACE. here's hoping the next zelda is set in space.

They always hint at it being more open world, but I remain unconvinced that Nintendo game designers can even conceptualize anything that is much more open world than Wind Waker. Or like, maybe they could, but there is some giant wall at Nintendo HQ that lays out what the Zelda brand stands for, and they think that going any more open world than Wind Waker is going too off-brand and would make everyone's head explode because apparently we are all babies that can't handle change.

#29 Edited by Nivash (241 posts) -

@posh: Maybe a Star Wars crossover?

"In a galaxy far, far away, the young Jedi Knight Link must pick up the MasterLightsabre to defeat Darth Ganon before he collects the pieces of the Triforce that would allow him to power the Deathstar and defeat the Hyrule Alliance, led by the Princess Zelda.

ACT 1, SCENE FIVE: [R2NAV2 enters]

R2NAV2: "LISTEN!"

[R2NAV2 plays a recorded Hologram, depicting princess Zelda]

Princess Zelda: "Help me Link, you're my only hope!"

...

<shudders>

The Horror, the Horror...

Really though, it ironically wouldn't change the plot that much since both are coming of age stories. You could even have link ride the Millenium Epona between dungeons including the ice dungeon Hoth, the jungle dungeon Dagoba, the fire dungeon Tatooine and the fortress dungeon Cloud City!

#30 Posted by EXTomar (4947 posts) -

Combat, dungeons, and boss encounters are at a design level considered a puzzle. Whether or not you are hitting the weak spot with a bomb Link tossed or a Fireball Zelda casts can be taken into account.

I'm not a big fan of the Zelda combat compared to other modern action games. I can take it or leave it but I'm definitely not enamored with it.

#31 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1605 posts) -

I think a lot of the people complaining about (3D) Zelda fatigue have, nostalgia aside, kind of grown away from the series as a whole. They may have fond memories of Ocarina of Time or The Wind Waker, but I have a feeling that if they actually went back and played them, they'd feel no differently about them than they do about Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword. I just plain don't buy this idea that someone could have loved The Wind Waker and hated Twilight Princess without their tastes also dramatically changing. The series could have evolved more than it has, but I think their opinion is mostly a function of their changing tastes.

At the risk of sounding elitist(?) or over-analytical, I think you need to have a degree of childlike wonder and an ability to suspect disbelief/cynicism to enjoy a Zelda game. They (and many Nintendo games) are sort of modern-day fairy tales, and I think Miyamoto has basically said as much in interviews before. If you're the kind of person who wants a deep/unpredictable narrative, wants novel/experimental gameplay experiences, bemoans "iterative" games, or gets most excited about indie games, you're probably not going to enjoy any 3D Zelda game.

A lot of the moaning about modern Nintendo seems to come from the kind of people who are fatigued with modern video games in general and are most excited about indie games -- people for whom "just a video game" is an indictment. They're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I don't think it's one shared by most gamers, especially when it comes to a series that's had two 3D console releases in the past 10 years.

About the 3D Zelda games, I'll also say this: part of the reason it hasn't evolved very much is the sheer enduring quality of Ocarina of Time's core design. How many games of the famed renaissance of 1998 are as playable and contemporary-feeling now as they were then? I replayed Half-Life years ago, and even then, it hadn't aged well. I played Metal Gear Solid this year, and while it had aged way better than I'd expected, a lot about it felt very clunky. StarCraft, in my mind, is the one game from 1998 that might give Ocarina of Time a run for its money in terms of enduring design, but it's hard for me to judge since I'm not an RTS guy.

Ocarina of Time comes from the same Nintendo that basically defined 3D platforming (and arguably 3D gaming) with Super Mario 64 -- OoT and SM64 were to 3D platforming and action-adventure what Call of Duty 4 was to modern FPS games, and it's telling that the core design of CoD hasn't changed much either. Nintendo, at least in their heyday, had a knack for nailing the mechanics of an uncharted genre in a way that others couldn't help but emulate. The games haven't changed very much, in part, because they haven't needed to.

#32 Posted by BisonHero (7041 posts) -

I think a lot of the people complaining about (3D) Zelda fatigue have, nostalgia aside, kind of grown away from the series as a whole. They may have fond memories of Ocarina of Time or The Wind Waker, but I have a feeling that if they actually went back and played them, they'd feel no differently about them than they do about Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword. I just plain don't buy this idea that someone could have loved The Wind Waker and hated Twilight Princess without their tastes also dramatically changing. The series could have evolved more than it has, but I think their opinion is mostly a function of their changing tastes.

It's not that I don't think Twilight Princess is a good game, it's that it's basically the same good game they made in 1998, except with a shittily implemented wolf transformation, a less meaningful light world/dark world mechanic that really just amounts to like 4-5 one-time straightforward missions, and a bigger Hyrule Field that is about as empty and boring as Ocarina of Time's big, empty, boring Hyrule Field. They're the ones that felt the need to rush into making a second Zelda on one of their weakest selling consoles for some reason (popular theory being to win people back after the needless debacle over Wind Waker's art style), and I think the reactionary nature of its development shows because they made the most formulaic Zelda ever. The game is fine, but it makes me respect the Zelda dev team at Nintendo less because they seem intellectually lazy and disinterested in trying new things. Or they're horribly afraid to change anything for business reasons because Nintendo top brass think it needs to stick to formula or something.

To compare to another game you mentioned that came out in the same year as Ocarina of Time and largely pioneered a genre, Metal Gear Solid has made some pretty bold changes each game and has released at about a comparable rate to Zelda. The Zelda series could have developed a lot more than it has, and it should be rather embarrassing for Nintendo how little thought they put into significantly improving or even just altering any major part of the series.

Ocarina of Time holds up because it set the standard and was groundbreaking at the time. Majora's Mask can't be expected to do that much when it came out a scant 2 years later and reused a lot of art assets, and it STILL managed to have well integrated Link transformations (better than fucking Wolf Link) and a fairly original concept in the 3-day time limit. Wind Waker vastly overhauled the overworld, and gave a strong sense of exploration, and the later dungeons with an AI companion were an interesting twist.

I can't say the same for much of anything in Twilight Princess. The Temple of Time where you lead the statue around was cool, though the Rod of Dominion (and the Spinner) are the most narrow, effectively-single-dungeon-use items in all of Zelda. To Skyward Sword's credit, it did mix up how the sword fighting works and added an upgrade system, though those felt rather swing-and-a-miss to me, but I will give them some credit for trying.

At the very least, even if they don't reinvent all of Zelda, they could at least try to improve the scope of the games a little bit, to something closer to Okami or something.

#33 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12115 posts) -

In it's own favor, you can't really say that there has ever been a truly bad zelda game, those CDi "gems" notwithstanding. I'd be interested to see what a Zelda game informed by modern game design would look like, but let's be honest: The next Zelda game will look fantastic in 1080p, mix up the formula slightly, have some sort of tablet-related gimmick but will inevitably garner the same complaints as Skyward Sword and will probably have a longer, more pedantic opening tutorial sequence. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. I'd really like to be.

#34 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1605 posts) -

@bisonhero said:

It's not that I don't think Twilight Princess is a good game, it's that it's basically the same good game they made in 1998, except with a shittily implemented wolf transformation, a less meaningful light world/dark world mechanic that really just amounts to like 4-5 one-time straightforward missions, and a bigger Hyrule Field that is about as empty and boring as Ocarina of Time's big, empty, boring Hyrule Field. They're the ones that felt the need to rush into making a second Zelda on one of their weakest selling consoles for some reason (popular theory being to win people back after the needless debacle over Wind Waker's art style), and I think the reactionary nature of its development shows because they made the most formulaic Zelda ever. The game is fine, but it makes me respect the Zelda dev team at Nintendo less because they seem intellectually lazy and disinterested in trying new things. Or they're horribly afraid to change anything for business reasons because Nintendo top brass think it needs to stick to formula or something.

I just replayed Twilight Princess, which I wanted to experience again before playing Skyward Sword (I know, what kind of Zelda fan am I?), and I'll agree, it had some problems, and there's something about it that didn't quite connect with me in the same way as other games. I wouldn't go so far as to call it rushed, as it's a noticeably more fleshed-out game than The Wind Waker. Calling them intellectually lazy seems like a stretch -- I think it's way easier to say "Zelda needs to change" than it is to say what exactly that change should entail. I've heard a ton of the former and very little (especially in specifics, not meaninglessly broad strokes) of the latter.

@bisonhero said:

To compare to another game you mentioned that came out in the same year as Ocarina of Time and largely pioneered a genre, Metal Gear Solid has made some pretty bold changes each game and has released at about a comparable rate to Zelda. The Zelda series could have developed a lot more than it has, and it should be rather embarrassing for Nintendo how little thought they put into significantly improving or even just altering any major part of the series.

But that's kind of my point -- Metal Gear Solid was a much less fundamentally solid game than Ocarina of Time, so they needed to change more. I've actually only played the first game so far, so I can't comment on how it changed, but my impression is that (especially before 4), there were some fundamentally clunky aspects of its game design. There were aspects of MGS 1 that would be straight-up terrible in a modern game, whereas Nintendo could re-release Ocarina of Time in 2011 and basically placate people by letting them equip the Iron Boots without pausing.

@bisonhero said:

Ocarina of Time holds up because it set the standard and was groundbreaking at the time. Majora's Mask can't be expected to do that much when it came out a scant 2 years later and reused a lot of art assets, and it STILL managed to have well integrated Link transformations (better than fucking Wolf Link) and a fairly original concept in the 3-day time limit. Wind Waker vastly overhauled the overworld, and gave a strong sense of exploration, and the later dungeons with an AI companion were an interesting twist.

I can't say the same for much of anything in Twilight Princess. The Temple of Time where you lead the statue around was cool, though the Rod of Dominion (and the Spinner) are the most narrow, effectively-single-dungeon-use items in all of Zelda. To Skyward Sword's credit, it did mix up how the sword fighting works and added an upgrade system, though those felt rather swing-and-a-miss to me, but I will give them some credit for trying.

At the very least, even if they don't reinvent all of Zelda, they could at least try to improve the scope of the games a little bit, to something closer to Okami or something.

It's true that Majora's Mask and Wind Waker felt different, but I think there's a tendency to overstate exactly how different they were, and a lot of it seems to be more about tone and graphical style than core gameplay changes. I mean, if we're going to list examples, Twilight Princess had horseback combat, the Double Clawshots, and the magnetic Iron Boots. I thought Midna was a neat character, Zant was an interesting (in the sense that he was ultimately kind of weak and pathetic) villain, and the characters generally felt more alive than in previous games. Wolf Link wasn't really badly designed so much as the gameplay scenarios designed around him sometimes were -- he had a different feel in combat, what with mauling enemies, biting birds out of the air, and that circular one-shot attack. Z-target leaping was pretty satisfying. While the swordplay wasn't hard or especially complex, they did give you a lot more maneuvers, and got rid of Wind Waker's kind of lame QTE parry system. I'm not trying to claim it was innovative or anything, but it was more imaginative than a lot of people give it credit for.

#35 Posted by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

More like Nintendo fatigue.

#36 Edited by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -

The worst part of the Nintendo flac in my opinion, is the people saying "OMG Wii U sucks so bad, why is Nintendo even making hardware anymore?". What they don't see is how important Nintendo is to the overall evolution of video game interactivity. I don't need to list all the things they introduced that other people have aped through the years, things that has become standard now. If they gave up, who would push anything forward? Sony or Microsoft sure as hell won't, they can't innovate for shit. When their consoles stop making them money they'll probably just go 'Eh, fuck it, let's focus on something else instead' like Sony has with the PS Vita or what Microsoft did with Windows Phone 8 (right? I mean what happened with that?). Sony and Microsoft are so huge that they can afford to drop something, but Nintendo has to innovate to stay alive.

Therefore the attitude 'Fuck nintendo and their childish waving stuff, can't they just die already?' is stupid, video gaming will just come to a stall and we'll be stuck with the same shit forever.

I realize I probably sound like some douchebag Nintendo fanboy, but I'm really not. I don't even have a Wii U and I'm not super into zelda and whatnot either, I just think Nintendo is the most important company out of the three for the continuing development of the industry.

Man your arguing skills are....something. You want to give some examples there instead of just shitting on anything that isn't nintendo? You end up sounding exactly like what you deny being at the end of your text there.

#37 Edited by oraknabo (1514 posts) -

@elixirbronze said:

...

Man your arguing skills are....something. You want to give some examples there instead of just shitting on anything that isn't nintendo? You end up sounding exactly like what you deny being at the end of your text there.

I'm not going to agree with his full argument, but Nintendo has been incredible influential since long before Sony and Microsoft ever even thought about getting into the games business. I've tried recently to make the point that it would be a huge loss for Nintendo to stop making hardware because of their contribution to controller design. Without Nintendo everyone would probably be using shit like the Atari Jaguar controller today with no analog sticks and a lot of pointless extra buttons.

#38 Edited by BisonHero (7041 posts) -

@vinny_says said:

@elixirbronze said:

The worst part of the Nintendo flac in my opinion, is the people saying "OMG Wii U sucks so bad, why is Nintendo even making hardware anymore?". What they don't see is how important Nintendo is to the overall evolution of video game interactivity. I don't need to list all the things they introduced that other people have aped through the years, things that has become standard now. If they gave up, who would push anything forward? Sony or Microsoft sure as hell won't, they can't innovate for shit. When their consoles stop making them money they'll probably just go 'Eh, fuck it, let's focus on something else instead' like Sony has with the PS Vita or what Microsoft did with Windows Phone 8 (right? I mean what happened with that?). Sony and Microsoft are so huge that they can afford to drop something, but Nintendo has to innovate to stay alive.

Therefore the attitude 'Fuck nintendo and their childish waving stuff, can't they just die already?' is stupid, video gaming will just come to a stall and we'll be stuck with the same shit forever.

I realize I probably sound like some douchebag Nintendo fanboy, but I'm really not. I don't even have a Wii U and I'm not super into zelda and whatnot either, I just think Nintendo is the most important company out of the three for the continuing development of the industry.

Man your arguing skills are....something. You want to give some examples there instead of just shitting on anything that isn't nintendo? You end up sounding exactly like what you deny being at the end of your text there.

To play devil's advocate, I'll agree that Nintendo tries to innovate on the hardware/input front more than Sony and Microsoft. The d-pad, shoulder buttons, rumble, early touch gaming on the DS, motion gaming, all pretty big deals. Motion gaming was a big enough deal that it forced Microsoft and Sony's hands and they had to make their own dumb motion gaming add-ons.

But I think in a way, that's what leads to people having these complaints about stuff like Zelda staying very similar. I assume Nintendo is keenly aware that all of their weird hardware ideas are a gamble, and any one of them could be a colossal Virtual Boy failure, so I think they want to keep their core series very safe and familiar so they keep on paying the bills. They pioneered some genres, but they haven't really innovated on a game design front since like, Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, both very influential games? Has there really been a time since then that Nintendo hasn't just been off doing their own thing, oblivious to game design trends or improvement in the rest of the industry, while in turn, the game industry isn't really following Nintendo's lead on anything in particular? So people are right to give Nintendo flack, because they really aren't evolving Zelda at anything but a snail's pace. Sony and Microsoft don't have this issue because all of the first party stuff they own is a bunch of scattered studios that get to work on different projects every few years and try different things, compared to Nintendo who has been making Zelda games for 25 years.

Wii Sports and Wii Fit were big deals, but they weren't some respected evolution in game design like Super Mario 64 or OoT: Wii Sports demonstrated the system well, but exists in what is otherwise a ghetto of so-so sports minigame collections that people eventually lost interest in, and are gradually dwindling. And ditto for Wii Fit: it prompted a boom of fitness games on the Wii, Kinect, and PS Move, but ultimately those were a fad and I don't think the public really cares anymore.

#39 Edited by EXTomar (4947 posts) -

There are bigger names than Nintendo (or even Atari) that have tried their hand at the video game thing and failed. Legacy is nice and all but we are supposed to give any vendor slack because of legacy it becomes a crutch instead of a good move. It is a fallacy to suggest how borked the world would be without X anyway.

So whatever, if people want me to cut Nintendo some slack then Nintendo needs to start doing things that interest me instead of appealing to some 80s nostalgia because that is worth no more than $0.99 a game.

Here is the odd thing about a lot of this and the other Nintendo thread: Nintendo fails and survives just fine with or without the fanatics. There is nothing weird about Nintendo struggling or Nintendo making mistakes.

#40 Edited by GunstarRed (5462 posts) -

Loved Skyward Sword. I didn't have any Zelda fatigue at all seeing as the last Zelda game I had played before it came out was Ocarina of Time at launch. The most Zelda-y game I had played between them was Okami.

#41 Posted by ElixirBronze (447 posts) -

@elixirbronze said:

The worst part of the Nintendo flac in my opinion, is the people saying "OMG Wii U sucks so bad, why is Nintendo even making hardware anymore?". What they don't see is how important Nintendo is to the overall evolution of video game interactivity. I don't need to list all the things they introduced that other people have aped through the years, things that has become standard now. If they gave up, who would push anything forward? Sony or Microsoft sure as hell won't, they can't innovate for shit. When their consoles stop making them money they'll probably just go 'Eh, fuck it, let's focus on something else instead' like Sony has with the PS Vita or what Microsoft did with Windows Phone 8 (right? I mean what happened with that?). Sony and Microsoft are so huge that they can afford to drop something, but Nintendo has to innovate to stay alive.

Therefore the attitude 'Fuck nintendo and their childish waving stuff, can't they just die already?' is stupid, video gaming will just come to a stall and we'll be stuck with the same shit forever.

I realize I probably sound like some douchebag Nintendo fanboy, but I'm really not. I don't even have a Wii U and I'm not super into zelda and whatnot either, I just think Nintendo is the most important company out of the three for the continuing development of the industry.

Man your arguing skills are....something. You want to give some examples there instead of just shitting on anything that isn't nintendo? You end up sounding exactly like what you deny being at the end of your text there.

What? At least I bring arguments instead of just calling out people for shit talking with nothing at all to back it up.

Examples? Nintendo introduced the d-pad, analog stick, shoulder buttons, portable gaming, movement-based gameplay, dual screens with touch and analog shoulder buttons to a mainstream audience. What did Microsoft and Sony bring? I dunno, Eyetoy and a Netflix app?

Nowhere am I 'shitting' on everything that isn't Nintendo, I'm only bringing up what Nintendo has done which others have not. Microsoft and Sony has done other good things that necessarily isn't 'innovations' per se. Give me counter arguments instead of just labeling me for no reason.

#42 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1605 posts) -

@vinny_says said:

@elixirbronze said:

The worst part of the Nintendo flac in my opinion, is the people saying "OMG Wii U sucks so bad, why is Nintendo even making hardware anymore?". What they don't see is how important Nintendo is to the overall evolution of video game interactivity. I don't need to list all the things they introduced that other people have aped through the years, things that has become standard now. If they gave up, who would push anything forward? Sony or Microsoft sure as hell won't, they can't innovate for shit. When their consoles stop making them money they'll probably just go 'Eh, fuck it, let's focus on something else instead' like Sony has with the PS Vita or what Microsoft did with Windows Phone 8 (right? I mean what happened with that?). Sony and Microsoft are so huge that they can afford to drop something, but Nintendo has to innovate to stay alive.

Therefore the attitude 'Fuck nintendo and their childish waving stuff, can't they just die already?' is stupid, video gaming will just come to a stall and we'll be stuck with the same shit forever.

I realize I probably sound like some douchebag Nintendo fanboy, but I'm really not. I don't even have a Wii U and I'm not super into zelda and whatnot either, I just think Nintendo is the most important company out of the three for the continuing development of the industry.

Man your arguing skills are....something. You want to give some examples there instead of just shitting on anything that isn't nintendo? You end up sounding exactly like what you deny being at the end of your text there.

What? At least I bring arguments instead of just calling out people for shit talking with nothing at all to back it up.

Examples? Nintendo introduced the d-pad, analog stick, shoulder buttons, portable gaming, movement-based gameplay, dual screens with touch and analog shoulder buttons to a mainstream audience. What did Microsoft and Sony bring? I dunno, Eyetoy and a Netflix app?

Nowhere am I 'shitting' on everything that isn't Nintendo, I'm only bringing up what Nintendo has done which others have not. Microsoft and Sony has done other good things that necessarily isn't 'innovations' per se. Give me counter arguments instead of just labeling me for no reason.

I'm a Nintendo fan, but I tend to think a lot of that stuff (or something different, but of a comparable level of improvement) would have been invented at some point anyway. Nintendo have tended to be a few years ahead of competitors when it comes to input methods simply because they've always invested a lot of thought and R&D in it, and have strong, integrated internal development teams that can help test and improve concepts.

It's sort of like the argument that every other mobile phone and tablet manufacturer is copying Apple. It's true that Apple brought a lot of what we take for granted in a modern smartphone to market first, but a lot of the innovations are obvious enough that I think they would have happened a year or two out. Apple, like Nintendo, are a company that invests a lot in user interaction R&D and can work on hardware and software in tandem, and because of that, they beat competitors to market.

In both cases, I think Nintendo and Apple serve as trail-blazers, and are able to get ideas out there faster (and in more polished forms) than competitors, but I don't think they had some unique insight that others wouldn't have come up with. That's not to take away from Nintendo or Apple -- they're impressive, admirable companies, and have shaped their industries more than their competitors.

#43 Posted by BisonHero (7041 posts) -

@elixirbronze said:
@vinny_says said:

@elixirbronze said:

The worst part of the Nintendo flac in my opinion, is the people saying "OMG Wii U sucks so bad, why is Nintendo even making hardware anymore?". What they don't see is how important Nintendo is to the overall evolution of video game interactivity. I don't need to list all the things they introduced that other people have aped through the years, things that has become standard now. If they gave up, who would push anything forward? Sony or Microsoft sure as hell won't, they can't innovate for shit. When their consoles stop making them money they'll probably just go 'Eh, fuck it, let's focus on something else instead' like Sony has with the PS Vita or what Microsoft did with Windows Phone 8 (right? I mean what happened with that?). Sony and Microsoft are so huge that they can afford to drop something, but Nintendo has to innovate to stay alive.

Therefore the attitude 'Fuck nintendo and their childish waving stuff, can't they just die already?' is stupid, video gaming will just come to a stall and we'll be stuck with the same shit forever.

I realize I probably sound like some douchebag Nintendo fanboy, but I'm really not. I don't even have a Wii U and I'm not super into zelda and whatnot either, I just think Nintendo is the most important company out of the three for the continuing development of the industry.

Man your arguing skills are....something. You want to give some examples there instead of just shitting on anything that isn't nintendo? You end up sounding exactly like what you deny being at the end of your text there.

What? At least I bring arguments instead of just calling out people for shit talking with nothing at all to back it up.

Examples? Nintendo introduced the d-pad, analog stick, shoulder buttons, portable gaming, movement-based gameplay, dual screens with touch and analog shoulder buttons to a mainstream audience. What did Microsoft and Sony bring? I dunno, Eyetoy and a Netflix app?

Nowhere am I 'shitting' on everything that isn't Nintendo, I'm only bringing up what Nintendo has done which others have not. Microsoft and Sony has done other good things that necessarily isn't 'innovations' per se. Give me counter arguments instead of just labeling me for no reason.

I'm a Nintendo fan, but I tend to think a lot of that stuff (or something different, but of a comparable level of improvement) would have been invented at some point anyway. Nintendo have tended to be a few years ahead of competitors when it comes to input methods simply because they've always invested a lot of thought and R&D in it, and have strong, integrated internal development teams that can help test and improve concepts.

It's sort of like the argument that every other mobile phone and tablet manufacturer is copying Apple. It's true that Apple brought a lot of what we take for granted in a modern smartphone to market first, but a lot of the innovations are obvious enough that I think they would have happened a year or two out. Apple, like Nintendo, are a company that invests a lot in user interaction R&D and can work on hardware and software in tandem, and because of that, they beat competitors to market.

In both cases, I think Nintendo and Apple serve as trail-blazers, and are able to get ideas out there faster (and in more polished forms) than competitors, but I don't think they had some unique insight that others wouldn't have come up with. That's not to take away from Nintendo or Apple -- they're impressive, admirable companies, and have shaped their industries more than their competitors.

And that's also why so many people are uncertain about Nintendo right now, as the Wii U console isn't doing anything that weird on the input innovation front to get people's attention. The button and analog stick layout is basically standard. Touch gaming was pioneered by the DS/Apple years ago. Singleplayer Wii U games are effectively DS games, though some are trying to do the weird thing where you point the Gamepad at the screen which technically the DS' bottom screen couldn't do. Multiplayer Wii U games are basically the only new thing, but the asymmetrical multiplayer is a tricky concept to design for that I fear only Nintendo will really put much effort into even though it is pretty cool.

But still, people are talking like the Wii U will be a Dreamcast-style failure-with-2-years, but Nintendo isn't stupid, and I'm sure they can salvage the whole thing into a Gamecube situation where they are quietly there in 3rd place, making some money and some interesting games, and hopefully their next console will be a bigger hit.

#44 Posted by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -

@vinny_says said:

@elixirbronze said:

The worst part of the Nintendo flac in my opinion, is the people saying "OMG Wii U sucks so bad, why is Nintendo even making hardware anymore?". What they don't see is how important Nintendo is to the overall evolution of video game interactivity. I don't need to list all the things they introduced that other people have aped through the years, things that has become standard now. If they gave up, who would push anything forward? Sony or Microsoft sure as hell won't, they can't innovate for shit. When their consoles stop making them money they'll probably just go 'Eh, fuck it, let's focus on something else instead' like Sony has with the PS Vita or what Microsoft did with Windows Phone 8 (right? I mean what happened with that?). Sony and Microsoft are so huge that they can afford to drop something, but Nintendo has to innovate to stay alive.

Therefore the attitude 'Fuck nintendo and their childish waving stuff, can't they just die already?' is stupid, video gaming will just come to a stall and we'll be stuck with the same shit forever.

I realize I probably sound like some douchebag Nintendo fanboy, but I'm really not. I don't even have a Wii U and I'm not super into zelda and whatnot either, I just think Nintendo is the most important company out of the three for the continuing development of the industry.

Man your arguing skills are....something. You want to give some examples there instead of just shitting on anything that isn't nintendo? You end up sounding exactly like what you deny being at the end of your text there.

What? At least I bring arguments instead of just calling out people for shit talking with nothing at all to back it up.

Examples? Nintendo introduced the d-pad, analog stick, shoulder buttons, portable gaming, movement-based gameplay, dual screens with touch and analog shoulder buttons to a mainstream audience. What did Microsoft and Sony bring? I dunno, Eyetoy and a Netflix app?

Nowhere am I 'shitting' on everything that isn't Nintendo, I'm only bringing up what Nintendo has done which others have not. Microsoft and Sony has done other good things that necessarily isn't 'innovations' per se. Give me counter arguments instead of just labeling me for no reason.

There that wasn't so hard. I didn't have a problem with what you were saying, I had a problem with the way you were saying it. Don't get so defensive. If you're just going to write a 3 paragraph tirade with nothing to back it up don't act so surprised when people call you out on it.

#45 Edited by ElixirBronze (447 posts) -

@vinny_says: Well, at the same time, I kind of assume that the people I debate with are somewhat familiar with what in some circuits is considered common knowledge in the subject.

#46 Posted by fox01313 (5089 posts) -

Seems like all the better known nintendo franchises have gone through this & all of them to me feel kind of stuck in the same rut of fatigue where they get creative with one (ie. SM Galaxy) then either barley touch it again or like the new Super Mario games make many of the same running it in the ground. I'd rather have them take more chances on the design of these games than just churning them out where not a lot changes.

#47 Posted by MideonNViscera (2252 posts) -

It's funny because today I was contemplating getting a used copy of OoT and beating it for the 4th time.

#48 Posted by afabs515 (1327 posts) -

I definitely think that this is a huge problem Nintendo is experiencing with the majority of its franchises. The games are still fun, but it feels like Nintendo doesn't want to change their formulas for fear of losing their core audience. Unfortunately though, myself and a few people I know who used to love Nintendo won't buy their stuff anymore because it's all iterative. Zelda is just one of the series they have that suffers from this, but I definitely think they need to change it up soon, especially with the new consoles coming out. Gotta give people reasons to buy their stuff.

#49 Posted by posh (530 posts) -

I feel like a lot of people are missing my point... I'm aware that a bunch of people are tired of zelda games now, the part I still don't get is how zelda is really that iterative in the grand scheme of things, especially when compared to the character action genre, or the FPS genre for example

#50 Edited by afabs515 (1327 posts) -

@posh: This is just my experience, but the reason why the games feel iterative is because most of them (at least the ones I played) follow the same basic structure. You start off in a peaceful town as Link who may or may not be wearing the trademark tunic. If he isn't you do something to get the tunic. Regardless, some bad shit happens which forces you into the first dungeon (usually a forest/grass themed dungeon). After you beat this dungeon, you leave and explore two more dungeons, most likely meeting Zelda along the way. With these completed, you get the master sword. Now that you have that, it turns out you need the X pieces of Y, so that you will have the power to kill *insert villain here*. You go kill that dude, and if he wasn't Ganon, Ganon shows up and you kill him. Link never speaks, and the dialogue isn't spoken. The end.

Like I said, this is just my opinion, and only based on the games I played, which were mostly the console games, not including Skyward Sword. These games aren't bad, but people are getting tired of it. There may be minor variations to this formula, but for the most part, these games follow this path. Am I saying other games aren't iterative? No. Of course not. FPS games are just as guilty of being iterative, if not more so. But this is why I think these games are seen as iterative. Still love LoZ though.

Edit: Majora's Mask was totally unique and they should do more stuff like that. My favorite zelda game.