I love this. Very well-written blog. And I agree totally as well. Dark Souls captures the feel and essence of Zelda better than Zelda, Darksiders, or many other series have been able to for a long while. I'd love to see a take on the Souls experience from a Zelda point of view. I imagine that could be a really neat game.

@Little_Socrates said:

I'd always argue that Dark Souls carries on the tradition of 2D Zelda while Darksiders carries on the tradition of 3D Zelda. I guess that's because I never felt that 3D Zelda was that epic adventure we're describing; Ocarina of Time is pretty damned small, pretty barren, and excessively linear/hand-holding. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker do a better job of letting you roam on your own (especially with the much-maligned Triforce collection sequence in WW), but 2D Zelda is a much deeper, more difficult, and more imposing experience than 3D Zelda or Darksiders. I'd be remiss not to mention how amazing the mythos in MM and WW are, as they really lend to that epic sensation. Majora's Mask is just terrifying, and Wind Waker sets such a proper legendary course from the start that it gives me chills to think about.

I can get behind that distinction, and I agree that Zelda has gotten to be less of that adventure over time, even more once it switched to 3D (though I think Wind Waker doesn't get enough credit for being as epic as it is, but maybe that's just nostalgia speaking). Skyward Sword I think finally drilled that fact home for me.

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

This article points out the primary problem on our consensus from gaming criticism and journalism. We take the surface of games as an entire body and use it as a core for our judgements, and this totally fucks up franchises as they usually take the wrong turn after hearkening such renowned crowds. Is Diablo all about killing monsters, leveling up, and loot? Diablo3 sure answered that question with a confident "yes", but Diablo1 and 2 would look at their cousin and immediately say "no". It was the brooding atmosphere and psychological numbness that we got from the gore-trailed hallways and the dour notes stringed by Diablo1/2's musical score. If it were to always be about loot and progression, there would be no soul and it seems that my once favored franchise, Zelda, has truly lost that after my leaving from it.

Indie games are our only hope it seems.

It is a really weird thing that I've been noticing more and more over time, games often get described in a derivative way based on their surface level mechanics, but I think there's a lot more that goes into making almost every game what it is past basic gameplay tropes. Take your Diablo II example, that game often gets described as simply this compulsive loot hunting game, but there were a lot of other little touches such as the atmosphere and soundtrack that made it special to a lot of people. You can duplicate mechanics pretty easily, but it's a different proposition to duplicate how it feels to play a game, once you take all the details and intangibles into account. I think games are generally more diverse than we often give them credit for being, it's just easier to be overly reductive about it all (which I'm guilty of at times too).

And that might be a little dramatic about indie games, but I get what you're saying :P There have been a lot of great indie games recently, ones that have a unique identifiable soul in addition to playing great.

I always found Darksiders to be like Zelda but more intolerable. Why not set a game in a place where there aren't any NPCs or personality cause everyone is dead?

I've always felt that while Zelda has its basic tropes and tenants, the series has always evolved in ways that, while basic mechanics may be the same, the experience isn't. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I feel that Skyward Sword is just as much a Zelda game as Ocarina of Time or Link to the Past. It just does things that are out of the ordinary for what the series represents. I haven't played Dark Souls, so I can't say whether or not I agree with your assessment, but I can say that as much as Darksiders borrows from Zelda, it's the look and feel of Darksiders, that so-called "Dark Zelda", that I find so off-putting and hokey.

If I want Dark Zelda, there are plenty of options to choose from, with Majora's Mask siting at the top.

This article points out the primary problem on our consensus from gaming criticism and journalism. We take the surface of games as an entire body and use it as a core for our judgements, and this totally fucks up franchises as they usually take the wrong turn after hearkening such renowned crowds. Is Diablo all about killing monsters, leveling up, and loot? Diablo3 sure answered that question with a confident "yes", but Diablo1 and 2 would look at their cousin and immediately say "no". It was the brooding atmosphere and psychological numbness that we got from the gore-trailed hallways and the dour notes stringed by Diablo1/2's musical score. If it were to always be about loot and progression, there would be no soul and it seems that my once favored franchise, Zelda, has truly lost that after my leaving from it.

Indie games are our only hope it seems.

@frontman12 said:

IMHO, Darksiders Zelda Dark Souls, Metroidvania Zelda Castlevania. Demon-vania Metroid-zelda, way more than Darksiders II original Legend of Zelda. Dark Souls dungeon item-gate, water-gate temple shoe polish turkey sandwich.

Mmmm, turkey sandwich...

IMHO, Darksiders Zelda Dark Souls, Metroidvania Zelda Castlevania. Demon-vania Metroid-zelda, way more than Darksiders II original Legend of Zelda. Dark Souls dungeon item-gate, water-gate temple shoe polish turkey sandwich.

To me , darksiders have taken over the value tha zelda games stood for. And in a way zelda games aren't bad just not amazing anymore.

I disagree with you.

Darksiders is more like a Soul Reaver game to me than a legend of Zelda game. And Dark Souls is a modern 3d castlevania game.

I'd always argue that Dark Souls carries on the tradition of 2D Zelda while Darksiders carries on the tradition of 3D Zelda. I guess that's because I never felt that 3D Zelda was that epic adventure we're describing; Ocarina of Time is pretty damned small, pretty barren, and excessively linear/hand-holding. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker do a better job of letting you roam on your own (especially with the much-maligned Triforce collection sequence in WW), but 2D Zelda is a much deeper, more difficult, and more imposing experience than 3D Zelda or Darksiders. I'd be remiss not to mention how amazing the mythos in MM and WW are, as they really lend to that epic sensation. Majora's Mask is just terrifying, and Wind Waker sets such a proper legendary course from the start that it gives me chills to think about.

It's worth noting that I'm probably one of the least enthusiastic OoT players out there, and I drastically prefer the original Legend of Zelda to the game. I also preferred Oracle of Ages/Seasons at the time I played OoT.

...there's a lot more to write on this subject, of course. But I feel like I read a blog about this just as the year was starting, and I can't place who wrote it. It was definitely in the community spotlight, though.

@DoctorWelch said:

You started listening to the 8-4 Play podcast, didn't you? Can't sneak it by me ;)

Haha, I have listened to some of their podcasts, and I very well could have heard that comparison there. I freely admit that I had heard the comparison made elsewhere well before I wrote any of this, and 8-4 certainly could have been a source :P

You started listening to the 8-4 Play podcast, didn't you? Can't sneak it by me ;)

Darksiders is the adolescent Zelda game you always wanted, when you said wanted a mature Zelda game.

Dark Souls is the mature Zelda game you never even thought of, and had your mind blown when someone called it a mature Zelda game.

I got waaaay more old school Castlevania vibes from Dark Souls than Zelda. There is adventure to be had, sure, but "diseased half-rotten monsters around every corner that will kill you in terrible, unfair ways" belongs in the Castlevania end of that particular venn diagram. I'm just not seeing this "intangible" comparison between Zelda and Dark Souls.

@DelroyLindo said:

Dark Souls consistently reminded me of the way I felt playing Ocarina of Time for the first time many many years ago. I agree with what you said.

I also think the reviews to Dark Souls were a detriment. Many people (myself included) were likely put off by the reported difficulty. The game is challenging, sure, but it is no where near as difficult as it is made out to be, not even slightly.

Thanks! I also get a little annoyed by the way Dark Souls tends to misrepresented by its difficulty. Sure, it's challenging, but no where near as hard as reviews claim (I read some that said it was the hardest game this entire generation, which is completely ridiculous. Those reviewers must not play hard games). To be fair though, it's not just reviewers; the game's own tagline is "Prepare to die" after all.

@Slag said:

You know if the question has become whether Dark Souls is more like oldschool Zelda or oldschool Metroid/Castlevania, the real answer is that Dark Souls is awesome.

I really need to get a copy of that game.

It is interesting that that's more or less become the topic at this point. I tend to go with the way I feel playing the game rather than the mechanics or tropes, and in that sense it feels more like Zelda to me (I say this as someone who really loves all these series, and perhaps Metroid most of all). Either way you are correct in that you need to get Dark Souls, It's pretty awesome :P

@King9999 said:

Interesting that you would make a comparison between Dark Souls and Zelda. Most people view Dark Souls as what a 3D Castlevania should have been.

I don't think I agree with your argument completely, though. There are things that make Zelda what it is. The sense of adventure is a big part of it, but exploring dungeons and solving puzzles define Zelda as well. Dark Souls has neither of these. By the way, you should definitely play the original Zelda. There are numerous ways to do it, but I recommend playing the Zelda Classic version (google it). In addition to the original quests, you have access to user-created quests.

Not to beat a dead horse, but that was kind of the point, that even without those tropes (the dungeons and items and puzzles) Dark Souls still felt like the embodiment of the Zelda spirit to me. But that goes back to what it means to be a Zelda game, which can vary from person to person. I don't define Zelda much by the dungeons and puzzles, but I also think it's perfectly valid to do so. In which case the Dark Souls-Zelda comparison doesn't hold up very well.

I actually have a copy of the GBA "Classic NES Series" version of Zelda sitting on my shelf (staring at it right now!). Just need to find time to play it, but it's going to happen! I swear it! :P

Great post.

Interesting that you would make a comparison between Dark Souls and Zelda. Most people view Dark Souls as what a 3D Castlevania should have been.

I don't think I agree with your argument completely, though. There are things that make Zelda what it is. The sense of adventure is a big part of it, but exploring dungeons and solving puzzles define Zelda as well. Dark Souls has neither of these. By the way, you should definitely play the original Zelda. There are numerous ways to do it, but I recommend playing the Zelda Classic version (google it). In addition to the original quests, you have access to user-created quests.

You know if the question has become whether Dark Souls is more like oldschool Zelda or oldschool Metroid/Castlevania, the real answer is that Dark Souls is awesome.

I really need to get a copy of that game.

I don't have much to say because what you wrote gets my point, I've been saying this for months.

I love Dark Souls (& Demon's Souls as well, but Dark more), it's one of the most amazing things to happen to games in a long time, I love Zelda (OoT is my all time favorite game(I know cliché, but fuck you)) & Im 100% behind the fact that it's adult Zelda.

The sense of discovery, finding out just what is behind that next conner, the "Water Cooler" aspect where you can find out new things by talking with people, a vast world that has dungeons on top of it being it's own dungeon, all types of weapons at your beck & call, & AWESOME REAL TIME COMBAT that has a deep RPG backing to it & fucking works to boot. IT'S ZELDA!!!!!

Goddamnit, I really need to play Dark Souls. Nice write-up btw, but I still think Darksiders is the closest thing to a modern 3D Zelda game we've had in years, even more so than Skyward Sword. Admittedly, though, I've yet to play any Souls, save for a few hours with Demon's.

I actually think of Dark Souls as the new Super Metroid. You get better, and stronger (and maybe better geared) and you can survive through tougher areas, which are all named and have unique looks and characteristics.

@YummyTreeSap: I am your taskmaster for now, and I command you to restart Dark Souls and play it through. You will thank me. ;P

Dark Souls consistently reminded me of the way I felt playing Ocarina of Time for the first time many many years ago. I agree with what you said.

I also think the reviews to Dark Souls were a detriment. Many people (myself included) were likely put off by the reported difficulty. The game is challenging, sure, but it is no where near as difficult as it is made out to be, not even slightly.

@xobballox said:

I was telling my brother that for some reason Demon's Souls reminded me of Zelda way back when I first played it and he said I was crazy. I said Dark Souls reminded me even more of Zelda and he told me I was crazy. I'm glad to see I'm not crazy. (Or at least others share my crazy.)

That kind of vindication is what we really live for isn't it? :P Glad I could help!

@Lysergica33 said:

Cool article. I see the point you're making, but if anything I feel that Dark Souls is more of a great metroidvania game than a Zelda game. While I agree about the sense of adventure, I think Zelda games are also very much defined by their mechanics and tropes. The heart pieces, the gadgets, the dungeons and puzzles all help to make Zelda what it is, and Dark Souls doesn't really have any of that. Sure you can get pieces of equipment that will HELP, you eventually get things like the ability to warp between certain fires (which may be in a sense comparable to the gadgets and items you acquire in Zelda,) but fundamentally the only thing that will get you through the game is your own ingenuity, skill and your will to continue onwards despite the world's best attempts to whittle down your resolve steadily over time until you're a mere shell of your once courageous self.

So while I see what you're saying from a philosophical point of view, without Dark Souls having some of the fundamental tropes of what makes a Zelda game what it is mechanically, the comparison is flawed, and why I feel a metroidvania comparison is more apt. Infact I would say Dark Souls is one of the purest examples of a metroidvania game in a long time considering you end up constantly trekking back and forth across the world as you find certain areas block you from continuing due to not having certain items, or more commonly, not having a certain amount of skill.

Great article though!

Thanks! You're absolutely right that Dark Souls doesn't have those tropes that define Zelda mechanically, and that's more or less the point. It doesn't have those things, and yet it felt like it captured the Zelda spirit more than any game has for me in a while. It definitely comes down to what Zelda means to you, and for me it's not defined by those tropes, the gadgets and heart pieces and whatnot. So many games have that kind of stuff now. But the size and scope of the pure adventure within Dark Souls feels like the older Zelda games did to me back in the day. I said it somewhere else in all these comments, but Dark Souls kind of feels like what Zelda would have been if it grew up alongside me, keeping its spirit in tact. I'll admit, it's a bit abstract and touchy-feely :P

You also mention that in Dark Souls you have to primarily rely on your ingenuity, skill and will to continue more than items and gear, and I believe the original Zelda is much in the same boat. I haven't played it yet (will soon, promise!), so maybe someone else can confirm or deny, but it's my understanding that it wasn't so reliant on items. Your Metroidvania comparison is interesting too. Dark Souls doesn't rely very much on item/ability gating (your abilities are fairly similar the entire game), but I can see some similarities in terms of the exploration, and the way you're forced to become really familiar with the world. Good stuff to ponder on at least!

@Phatmac said:

While I loathe the Souls games and will continue to do so I still enjoyed reading this. Darksiders is still the best modern Zelda game out there so I can't wait to play the second one. Great read.

Haha, thanks! I enjoy those as well, if for different reasons than I enjoy Dark Souls, and plan to pick up Darksiders II soon myself :P

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

My Ultimate Final Super Fantastic Game of the Forever would be a Zelda game with a Dark Souls world structure and game mechanics and a Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind aesthetic/narrative. Just throwing that out there.

I would play this game. But only if it was officially called "My Ultimate Final Super Fantastic Game of the Forever" :P

@YummyTreeSap said:

@leebmx said:

This reminds me quite a bit of this article. At least regarding the comparison of the -Souls franchise to the original Zelda game(s). While I certainly don't agree with it on every aspect, it definitely reflects a lot of what I believe as well.

I actually read that article a few months ago, and in some small way it might have manifested itself in the back of my brain while I was writing this. I think it's a very interesting read, and a lot of my points and his are fairly similar, even if he's a lot more extreme with the idea than I am. I still like modern Zeldas like Skyward Sword and Darksiders perfectly fine; those are going in a different direction than stuff like Dark Souls, and I respect and appreciate that. They have their place. This guy is very idealistic about what games can and almost should be, and I definitely admire his passion for the topic, but he's almost too hardcore in a way. I absolutely love the demanding nature of Dark Souls, but imagine if every game was like that? It would be a crazy world if nothing else. That said, it is a great read, I definitely recommend people check it out.

I was telling my brother that for some reason Demon's Souls reminded me of Zelda way back when I first played it and he said I was crazy. I said Dark Souls reminded me even more of Zelda and he told me I was crazy. I'm glad to see I'm not crazy. (Or at least others share my crazy.)

@leebmx said:

This reminds me quite a bit of this article. At least regarding the comparison of the -Souls franchise to the original Zelda game(s). While I certainly don't agree with it on every aspect, it definitely reflects a lot of what I believe as well.

It's worth noting that I'm an immense -Souls fanboy. Demon's Souls is easily my favorite disc-based game of the generation. The sense of loneliness, helplessness, and directionlessness (it's a word now, dammit!) the game conveys is unlike any other. That you're not given much help and have to figure things out (even the story!) on your own is exceptionally courageous in today's gaming climate (true—you can resort to the wiki if you must). I actually haven't beaten Dark Souls yet because I stopped for a bit and now I'm stuck at that point where I'm not sure if I should start from where I left off and not totally understand what the hell I'm doing or start again and lose all the progress I made.

But I'm really digressing now.

Also:

@MajorMitch said:

You've tempted me to try Dark Souls. It never really appealed because the thought of doing the same thing over and again just sounded maddening but if that can be used to add a sense of danger and peril to the world rather than just frustration it might be worth it.

Well, it must be said that Demon's/Dark Souls both can be extremely frustrating games. This much I cannot deny. However, what I think sets them apart from your more typically frustrating game is that in most cases it is your own self you're getting frustrated at. You'll be taking things slowly (as you should), but then you'll have a lapse of judgment where you get overconfident in your ability to slay a particular enemy or you'll try to take on more than you should and you'll find yourself dead in no time (both very common habits I get into after dying a few times). It's part of what I love about these games. Almost every enemy is dangerous if you aren't being smart about how you fight them.

I could go on for-ever, but I will spare you.

My Ultimate Final Super Fantastic Game of the Forever would be a Zelda game with a Dark Souls world structure and game mechanics and a Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind aesthetic/narrative. Just throwing that out there. 

@Lysergica33 said:

So while I see what you're saying from a philosophical point of view, without Dark Souls having some of the fundamental tropes of what makes a Zelda game what it is mechanically, the comparison is flawed, and why I feel a metroidvania comparison is more apt. Infact I would say Dark Souls is one of the purest examples of a metroidvania game in a long time considering you end up constantly trekking back and forth across the world as you find certain areas block you from continuing due to not having certain items, or more commonly, not having a certain amount of skill.

That's a very good counterpoint.

Well, any adventure game now a days is inspired by Zelda and I agree there a re some similarities. That said, I think DaS is better than Zelda. Fuck yeah I said it. It´s my favorite game ever for a reason. I could writte books about that game...

I've never thought about the Souls games in this way, but I definitely agree completely. Maybe that's part of the reason the Souls games resonate with me so much.

I dunno, I like Dark Souls for being different and trying new things, but the one thing I dont like about it, is you get no real grip on the rules of the world. You can walk into a land and get one shot killed, and walk to another land a few miles away and mow down everything in your path. It just seems inconsistent at times, to where you can't really explore becuase you are eventually gonna get fucked. In the original Zelda, I never had that feeling. That pretty much anywhere I went, I had a shot at surviving until I reached a point to where I didn't have the right tool.

Cool article. I see the point you're making, but if anything I feel that Dark Souls is more of a great metroidvania game than a Zelda game. While I agree about the sense of adventure, I think Zelda games are also very much defined by their mechanics and tropes. The heart pieces, the gadgets, the dungeons and puzzles all help to make Zelda what it is, and Dark Souls doesn't really have any of that. Sure you can get pieces of equipment that will HELP, you eventually get things like the ability to warp between certain fires (which may be in a sense comparable to the gadgets and items you acquire in Zelda,) but fundamentally the only thing that will get you through the game is your own ingenuity, skill and your will to continue onwards despite the world's best attempts to whittle down your resolve steadily over time until you're a mere shell of your once courageous self.

So while I see what you're saying from a philosophical point of view, without Dark Souls having some of the fundamental tropes of what makes a Zelda game what it is mechanically, the comparison is flawed, and why I feel a metroidvania comparison is more apt. Infact I would say Dark Souls is one of the purest examples of a metroidvania game in a long time considering you end up constantly trekking back and forth across the world as you find certain areas block you from continuing due to not having certain items, or more commonly, not having a certain amount of skill.

Great article though!

While I loathe the Souls games and will continue to do so I still enjoyed reading this. Darksiders is still the best modern Zelda game out there so I can't wait to play the second one. Great read.

Whoa man, I felt the same way about Skyward Sword and Darksiders, and you've done a good job articulating what I enjoyed about Dark Souls. Good post!

@Brodehouse: Haha, no problem duder :P I do agree that "gritty" and "mature" get way too overused, including with regards to Zelda and Darksiders.

@MarkWahlberg said:

I don't think they meant real adults. I think they just meant 'adults who remain in our target demographic, despite the fact that the majority of 'mature' material in this industry is adolescent gore-fest schlock.'

What!? Those aren't real adults!?

@OneManX said:

I dunno, I like Dark Souls for being different and trying new things, but the one thing I dont like about it, is you get no real grip on the rules of the world. You can walk into a land and get one shot killed, and walk to another land a few miles away and mow down everything in your path. It just seems inconsistent at times, to where you can't really explore becuase you are eventually gonna get fucked. In the original Zelda, I never had that feeling. That pretty much anywhere I went, I had a shot at surviving until I reached a point to where I didn't have the right tool.

That's an interesting comparison, though I never quite felt that hopeless in Dark Souls (the speed runs might convince you that it's never as hard as it first seems :P).

The way Dark Souls' world is open and each area contains enemies of varying difficulties is one of the things I really like about it actually. It makes it feel less like the world is adapting to me (think about how games like Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls level enemies alongside you, for example) and more like I'm being forced to adapt to the world in all its craziness. Every time I enter a new area I have to determine if I can find a way through on my own, of decide that I'd be better off coming back later when I'm more prepared/experienced. Makes it feel like I'm connecting with the world on a more intimate, organic level. Zelda at its worst can feel like a thinly veiled series of locked doors, though at its best can feel just as organic as Dark Souls.

@MrKlorox said:

So imagine the universe split after Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link came out. In universe A, Zelda continued to progress in the direction that it has in this universe (LOZ1 and LTTP style became the main style as it went 3D and it focused more on ability gating). In universe B, they continued in the direction of Zelda 2 (kill things for experience-like points which you spend on character upgrades, that return to zero after dying, with combat that feels more like dueling and mistakes are not tolerated). Darksiders would be the product of universe A's Zelda style, and Dark Souls would be the product of universe B's Zelda style.

That's an interesting thought! Zelda can't seem to get away from split timeline theories can it? :P

@leebmx said:

I do think part of it has to do with growing up as well. The feelings Zelda games are trying to conjure up are those of children fairytales where the hero stands dwarfed outside the huge castle of the Dark King. The exploration and fun of a Zelda game are in a very different, more childish category than the macho power trip of Elder Scrolls etc. Link has always felt like a child in an adults world, leaving the comfort and safety of home to explore a new more confusing and dangerous world and I think that idea resonates very much with kids as they play their first games. I think as we grow old its hard to recapture that magic in the same way.

Because I don't think the danger in Zelda is really there. If you are a reasonable player you will always have enough hearts and potions to get you through any dungeon. Its just that the game conjoures that feeling of being a child in a big dark world so well that for younger players this really resonates. Children are great at filling in the gaps in the fantasy that the game cannot really provide and while we don't lose this ability we are less keen to use it as we grow older. Zelda's greatness is a magic which is almost impossible to recreate for a audience who are now in a different stage of life which is why it is easier for the game to be defined by hookshots, dungeons, rules of three etc. Darksiders could almost be a satire on the situation Zelda finds itself in today.

You've tempted me to try Dark Souls. It never really appealed because the thought of doing the same thing over and again just sounded maddening but if that can be used to add a sense of danger and peril to the world rather than just frustration it might be worth it.

I think that's a great point about it being hard to recapture the "magic" as you get older, and I'm sure some of Zelda's lost magic for me is due to me not being as young as I once was. At the same time, I think that makes Dark Souls even more impressive in a way, because it does hold a magic of sorts for me now, as an adult. Not the same childlike fantasy version Zelda had, but a more grown-up version of it. I got lost in Dark Souls much the same way I did the older Zeldas, which is a big reason why I see a comparison. It's almost like if Zelda had grown up with me, it would have turned into Dark Souls.

If you're thinking about trying Dark Souls, the amount of frustration varies from person to person :P I found the difficulty great for raising the stakes, and increasing the tension and immersion. But I also know plenty who can't stand it. Never know until you try though!

So imagine the universe split after Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link came out. In universe A, Zelda continued to progress in the direction that it has in this universe (LOZ1 and LTTP style became the main style as it went 3D and it focused more on ability gating). In universe B, they continued in the direction of Zelda 2 (kill things for experience-like points which you spend on character upgrades, that return to zero after dying, with combat that feels more like dueling and mistakes are not tolerated). 
 
Darksiders would be the product of universe A's Zelda style, and Dark Souls would be the product of universe B's Zelda style.

I dunno, I like Dark Souls for being different and trying new things, but the one thing I dont like about it, is you get no real grip on the rules of the world. You can walk into a land and get one shot killed, and walk to another land a few miles away and mow down everything in your path. It just seems inconsistent at times, to where you can't really explore becuase you are eventually gonna get fucked. In the original Zelda, I never had that feeling. That pretty much anywhere I went, I had a shot at surviving until I reached a point to where I didn't have the right tool.

In dark souls I was reminded alot about that zelda boss fight where you had to reflect his attacks. I don't know why but I definetly have made the comparison.

@leebmx said:

If it is exploration that means Zelda to you then aren't games like Skyrim or Fallout the 'new' Zelda as well?

Yea, the more recent Elder Scrolls titles are a modern evolution of what the original Legend of Zelda brought: Go wherever you want, do something, maybe find a secret - have an adventure!

@Wrighteous86 said:

@Brodehouse said:

I really wish I could put all these 'gritty, mature' Zelda fans into the slingshot to the sun. Zelda has never been gritty or mature, and it never will be because it's designed for 10 year olds, just like you when you first played it. And there's nothing 'gritty' about Darksiders, it's a Goddamn comic book. It's as gritty as Infamous.

Yeah, all the people that praised Darksiders as a Zelda for adults confused the hell out of me. I would be much more embarrassed to be seen playing Darksiders than Twilight Princess. Blood and a buff violent protagonist does not a mature game make. It's cheesy and "badass" in the same way that a high school heavy metal fan's notebook is.

It's a decent game, but the style and tone were the things I liked least about it.

I don't think they meant real adults. I think they just meant 'adults who remain in our target demographic, despite the fact that the majority of 'mature' material in this industry is adolescent gore-fest schlock.'

Also sorry if I came off like an asshole. I reread my post and it's far more dickish than maybe I intended. So I apologize.

@Brodehouse said:

Darksiders is Ocarina of Time. Straight up, if you can't see it then you're blind. I'm not even trying to be an asshole, that game is _Ocarina-ass Ocarina_. That game is like Ocarina like no game has been since. It makes sense that Dark Souls is like the original Zelda, because 25 years later I can't stand that game. Now Link to the Past, now we're talking. Also, I really wish I could put all these 'gritty, mature' Zelda fans into the slingshot to the sun. Zelda has never been gritty or mature, and it never will be because it's designed for 10 year olds, just like you when you first played it. And there's nothing 'gritty' about Darksiders, it's a Goddamn comic book. It's as gritty as Infamous.

Yeah, all the people that praised Darksiders as a Zelda for adults confused the hell out of me. I would be much more embarrassed to be seen playing Darksiders than Twilight Princess. Blood and a buff violent protagonist does not a mature game make. It's cheesy and "badass" in the same way that a high school heavy metal fan's notebook is.

It's a decent game, but the style and tone were the things I liked least about it.

Darksiders is Ocarina of Time. Straight up, if you can't see it then you're blind. I'm not even trying to be an asshole, that game is _Ocarina-ass Ocarina_. That game is like Ocarina like no game has been since.

It makes sense that Dark Souls is like the original Zelda, because 25 years later I can't stand that game. Now Link to the Past, now we're talking.

Also, I really wish I could put all these 'gritty, mature' Zelda fans into the slingshot to the sun. Zelda has never been gritty or mature, and it never will be because it's designed for 10 year olds, just like you when you first played it. And there's nothing 'gritty' about Darksiders, it's a Goddamn comic book. It's as gritty as Infamous.

@MajorMitch said:

I think exploration is certainly a part of it, but I think there's more to it than that for me. You're right that it can be very vague, so bear with me, but there's something about the older Zeldas and Dark Souls that make it feel like I'm really up against it, in the thick of things in a way that, say, Elder Scrolls and Fallout for example don't quite do. The Bethesda style feels more like a playground to me, a big fun environment to mess around in and see a lot of crazy/goofy stuff, and otherwise just have a ball in (I really like those games and what they do a lot too). Older Zelda/Dark Souls feel more consequential to me, if that's the right word. I feel more thrust into this perilous situation where both the world and my own life are in danger, and I have to summon all my courage and resources to succeed. This is opposed to the power fantasy "do whatever you want!" style of Bethesda games, if that makes any sense.

That explains it really clearly, thanks. It is definitely that Zelda has a structured freedom, whereas Bethesda games are just like a crazy adventure playground.

I do think part of it has to do with growing up as well. The feelings Zelda games are trying to conjure up are those of children fairytales where the hero stands dwarfed outside the huge castle of the Dark King. The exploration and fun of a Zelda game are in a very different, more childish category than the macho power trip of Elder Scrolls etc. Link has always felt like a child in an adults world, leaving the comfort and safety of home to explore a new more confusing and dangerous world and I think that idea resonates very much with kids as they play their first games. I think as we grow old its hard to recapture that magic in the same way.

Because I don't think the danger in Zelda is really there. If you are a reasonable player you will always have enough hearts and potions to get you through any dungeon. Its just that the game conjoures that feeling of being a child in a big dark world so well that for younger players this really resonates. Children are great at filling in the gaps in the fantasy that the game cannot really provide and while we don't lose this ability we are less keen to use it as we grow older. Zelda's greatness is a magic which is almost impossible to recreate for a audience who are now in a different stage of life which is why it is easier for the game to be defined by hookshots, dungeons, rules of three etc. Darksiders could almost be a satire on the situation Zelda finds itself in today.

You've tempted me to try Dark Souls. It never really appealed because the thought of doing the same thing over and again just sounded maddening but if that can be used to add a sense of danger and peril to the world rather than just frustration it might be worth it.

I don't suppose Dark Souls ever felt like Zelda for me. I do like both series though. I guess Zelda II did have elements of nervous tension a lot like the Souls games. Dying in Zelda II could be terrible. That was the also the hardest of the series for me.

And once again I am reminded that I really, really, really need to buy Dark Souls. Damn my lack of employment!

Interesting point about Skyward Sword following Darksiders' footsteps. I didn't play Darksiders until recently, so, with Skyward Sword being my current point of reference, I probably was completely blind to the similarities. Looking back, they were pretty obvious.

Still need to play A Link to the Past. That first one, too. Hear great things.

I haven't played either Darksiders or Dark Souls (or Skyward Sword, for that matter), but I get where you're coming from. When you have franchises that run this long, the problem of sticking to what's expected while avoiding staleness or self-parody often makes it easier for another franchise entirely to pick up and move things forward. Which can then lead to an issue of who is copying whom (see: James Bond, Jason Bourne), but whatever.