How some game franchises like say Gears of War can get away by releasing a sequal every 2 years which is basically the same game with another shade of brown. But then people get all up in arms if the next Zelda game isnt a revolution that will change video games and how we think of them forever. It has always struck me as odd.

Because Zelda has been around for like 20 years, and GOW is still quite new (sort of)...

Gears of War's sequels are not basically the same games with different shades of brown, and the reason people complain about Zelda is that the series still uses a lot of the same systems and ideas introduced generations ago, in the original Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past and Ocarina of time. Same crappy camera and lock-on system, same dungeons, same items. If they release the same type of Gears of War games we're seeing now on the Xbox 1080, you can bet your ass people will complain about that, too.

I don't get why people whine about Skyward Sword, though. All we've seen is a short demo meant to show off the new swordplay -- we don't know anything about how the game handles dungeons, puzzles and exploration.

I can't fathom why it struck you as odd. The Gears of War series has a narrative which follows between 1, 2 and obviously 3 so the games are going to come out every two or three years so people don't start whinging about when the follow up is going to be. This story structure and character building that happens in the games, along with new gameplay features and set pieces keep the game fresh and interesting. The Legend of Zelda repeatedly puts the player in a character that looks, acts and is named exactly the same as the guy in the game before in a quest that ends with him saving a princess that looks, acts and is named exactly the same as the game before and so consistently feels repetitious. Similarly, the past several games have all worked around the exact same structure of getting items and McGuffins to unlock the latter half of the game where the process continues on a slightly grander scale. 
 
The weirdest part is that there's usually only one of these Zelda games per generation so you'd expect them to be more advanced, coming from such a 'genius' as Shigeru Miyamoto, but instead they are the same game with a different shade of green on Hyrule field, just spaced a bit more openly so you aren't thinking of it as a rehash.

Seriously?  Zelda has been using the same general formula for 23 years in 25 games while the Gears of War franchise has been around for 4 years and two games.  If Gears got to 25 games using the same general formula, then people would say something.

" I can't fathom why it struck you as odd. The Gears of War series has a narrative which follows between 1, 2 and obviously 3 so the games are going to come out every two or three years so people don't start whinging about when the follow up is going to be. This story structure and character building that happens in the games, along with new gameplay features and set pieces keep the game fresh and interesting. The Legend of Zelda repeatedly puts the player in a character that looks, acts and is named exactly the same as the guy in the game before in a quest that ends with him saving a princess that looks, acts and is named exactly the same as the game before and so consistently feels repetitious. Similarly, the past several games have all worked around the exact same structure of getting items and McGuffins to unlock the latter half of the game where the process continues on a slightly grander scale. 
 
The weirdest part is that there's usually only one of these Zelda games per generation so you'd expect them to be more advanced, coming from such a 'genius' as Shigeru Miyamoto, but instead they are the same game with a different shade of green on Hyrule field, just spaced a bit more openly so you aren't thinking of it as a rehash. "

There have been what, 4? True 3d console zelda games in the past 12 years. The difference between each one is much, much greater than that of gears. Show me a screen shot of gears 2 and 3 and i cant tell the difference. What exactly is classed as a big change in the gears universe? Oh a bigger hammer of dawn? A new enemy type? Dom has a beard? I may be over exaggerating here, but to me gears offers nothing new and yet very few call them out on this (not that i care or want anyone to), a very small change in this game is classed as huge and then even though Zelda creates a whole new graphic style, a completely new world and in this case a very different form of control, they still get crapped on and labeled as same old. Yes i agree Zelda has been using the same core formula for a very long time, they should probably change it up a little, but give them a little credit. It's not as if they're re using assets and puzzles.

Also I'm probably a zelda fanboy since i love windwaker so much, so take my opinion how you will.  

hohohoho, nintendo haters goes enraged

" hohohoho, nintendo haters goes enraged "

I am hardly angry just find it a bit weird thats all, and before you peg me as a nintendo fanboy I feel that I should say that I do not own a Wii.

whoa whoa whoa here buddy. Gears of war multiplayer may be broken as hell but there is a major difference between the first and second game. Minus the graphics i cant tell the difference between most zelda games.

" @masterpaperlink:  there is no gears of war 3 yet man.  and a screenshot shows nothing but graphics. its the same series. its part 1 and part 2. and if you play them the gameplay is much more different than the gameplay from the zelda games. "

Please elaborate on how exactly the gameplay changed from gears 1 to 2? The core "stop and pop" formula remained  the same (and so it should have).  All i can remember is them adding little tweaks like chainsaw duels and stopping the shotgun roll combo (moving to semi 1:1 control isn't a bigger change?). In the same way gears keeps its core formula so does zelda, thats what makes it zelda. I guess the problem here is expectations.

I don't know what people expect to see when they want change, future link with a lightsaber? That would just be a skin yet everyone would class this as huge departure. Seeing link do the little bit of free running had much greater significance to me.

I should add that i am only semi excited for this game, i do think motion controls are stupid so not enough change is the last thing i am worried about.  

Did you watch the Gears III footage at E3? Did you see how green it was, and all the new enemies and whatnot? They're changing things. The Gears series has changed more in three games than Zelda ever did (well, maybe not, but they definitely have changed it up from game to game).

" @apoptosis61 said:

" hohohoho, nintendo haters goes enraged "

The only people who seem to be angry are grieferstolemykeyboard and masterpaperlink. "

Its because Nintendo take about 4 to 6 years to release a new Zelda, where gears of war is released every 2 to 3 years and therefore more is expected form a game the longer it has been away. Also Zelda has loads of nostalgia associated with it and people always say oh well this one isn't as great as ocarina but the next one will and therefore are inevitably disappointed by it.

" @apoptosis61 said:

" hohohoho, nintendo haters goes enraged "

The only people who seem to be angry are grieferstolemykeyboard and masterpaperlink. "

" @HandsomeDead said:

" @apoptosis61 said:

" hohohoho, nintendo haters goes enraged "

The only people who seem to be angry are grieferstolemykeyboard and masterpaperlink. "

I'm afraid random person #37469376 on the internet and their opinions aren't enough to make me angry  "

" @masterpaperlink said:

" @HandsomeDead said:

" @apoptosis61 said:

" hohohoho, nintendo haters goes enraged "

The only people who seem to be angry are grieferstolemykeyboard and masterpaperlink. "

I'm afraid random person #37469376 on the internet and their opinions aren't enough to make me angry  "

It's weird how you type a paragraph with an aggressive tone then act like you're not bothered. "

" I can't fathom why it struck you as odd. The Gears of War series has a narrative which follows between 1, 2 and obviously 3 so the games are going to come out every two or three years so people don't start whinging about when the follow up is going to be. This story structure and character building that happens in the games, along with new gameplay features and set pieces keep the game fresh and interesting. The Legend of Zelda repeatedly puts the player in a character that looks, acts and is named exactly the same as the guy in the game before in a quest that ends with him saving a princess that looks, acts and is named exactly the same as the game before and so consistently feels repetitious. Similarly, the past several games have all worked around the exact same structure of getting items and McGuffins to unlock the latter half of the game where the process continues on a slightly grander scale. 
 
The weirdest part is that there's usually only one of these Zelda games per generation so you'd expect them to be more advanced, coming from such a 'genius' as Shigeru Miyamoto, but instead they are the same game with a different shade of green on Hyrule field, just spaced a bit more openly so you aren't thinking of it as a rehash. "

" @masterpaperlink said:

" @HandsomeDead said:

" @apoptosis61 said:

" hohohoho, nintendo haters goes enraged "

The only people who seem to be angry are grieferstolemykeyboard and masterpaperlink. "

I'm afraid random person #37469376 on the internet and their opinions aren't enough to make me angry  "

It's weird how you type a paragraph with an aggressive tone then act like you're not bothered. "

" @Willy105: The idea that there's one set rules for what a video game should be when games technically have the most freedom to be whatever they want out of all kinds of new media is kind of terrible. There was a time when people thought movies should just be images with no audio but the industry got beyond that so why should games always be focused around one aspect? Synergy between story and gameplay seems to be the future for everyone besides Nintendo. Also, if the differences are so drastic, how come so many are saying this is the same old Zelda and Nintendo themselves at one point were saying this was going to be a major revamp. "

" @Willy105: Also, if the differences are so drastic, how come so many are saying this is the same old Zelda and Nintendo themselves at one point were saying this was going to be a major revamp. "

" @HandsomeDead said:

" @Willy105: Also, if the differences are so drastic, how come so many are saying this is the same old Zelda and Nintendo themselves at one point were saying this was going to be a major revamp. "

Because people are idiots. So far, all we've really seen is basic combat. Do we know how the dungeons will work?  The overworld? The exploration? The puzzles? No. For all we know, the game could be a lifesim with occasional combat segments. "

" I don't get why people whine about Skyward Sword, though. All we've seen is a short demo meant to show off the new swordplay -- we don't know anything about how the game handles dungeons, puzzles and exploration. "

" @Icemael said:

" I don't get why people whine about Skyward Sword, though. All we've seen is a short demo meant to show off the new swordplay -- we don't know anything about how the game handles dungeons, puzzles and exploration. "

True, though I'd think that if they were making drastic changes to any of that stuff they would have highlighted it during the demo, especially since they were trying to show they were "revolutionizing" the gameplay through motion control. I think they would have shown all of the ways they were really changing things if that were the case. "

sequals are generally refinements 
gears of war 2 was a refinement 
it was also fucking awesome and pretty much started the nazi zombie, firefight, survival mode trend 
 
and as much as i like zelda the last zelda game i thought was truly awesome was windwaker 
tp was okay 
this looks eh 
havent played the handheld games since like oracle of seasons/ ages 
 
they havent changed the gameplay at all

" There are no set rules, but it's kinda given that you have to play a videogame to get whatever you want from it. Movies are about someone else telling you a story, videogames are the other way around, you are creating a story with tools. Even the story intensive games follow this, since you are controlling the character or events that initiates the next story point.  

 However, when stories are too involved, the game itself has to be changed drastically (like Phoenix Wright's or Heavy Rain's unique gameplay mechanics), or suffer greatly from it.  

 If by the same old Zelda, I guess you mean it uses the same formula, since it's the same genre, like having lock on targeting, items like rupees and such. But you play it in a new way, which is the equivalent of a brand new story for a movie or book. It's all 1:1 gameplay. It is a major revamp, from a videogame point of view.   

 Think of it of the difference between the older FPS and the new ones where you can now look in all directions, and you aren't tied down to going front, back, and looking left and right. I get what you are saying, but that's not really taking advantage of what videogames are. "

" @HandsomeDead said:

" @Willy105: Also, if the differences are so drastic, how come so many are saying this is the same old Zelda and Nintendo themselves at one point were saying this was going to be a major revamp. "

Because people are idiots. So far, all we've really seen is basic combat. Do we know how the dungeons will work?  The overworld? The exploration? The puzzles? No. For all we know, the game could be a lifesim with occasional combat segments. "

"@Icemael said:

" @HandsomeDead said:

" @Willy105: Also, if the differences are so drastic, how come so many are saying this is the same old Zelda and Nintendo themselves at one point were saying this was going to be a major revamp. "

Because people are idiots. So far, all we've really seen is basic combat. Do we know how the dungeons will work?  The overworld? The exploration? The puzzles? No. For all we know, the game could be a lifesim with occasional combat segments. "

Wrong. People and Nintendo were saying about the idea of a revamp before this was even announced and people are going to base what they think of a product on what they see and what I saw was a game that looks like it played a lot like the old Zelda games only you swung the sword in the different angles rather than pressing the buttons. If the combat looks like the old game, it gives the feeling the rest will be like that too. I hope I'm wrong though, it's about time Nintendo lived up to their name as the market leader. "

" @Willy105 said:

" There are no set rules, but it's kinda given that you have to play a videogame to get whatever you want from it. Movies are about someone else telling you a story, videogames are the other way around, you are creating a story with tools. Even the story intensive games follow this, since you are controlling the character or events that initiates the next story point.  

 However, when stories are too involved, the game itself has to be changed drastically (like Phoenix Wright's or Heavy Rain's unique gameplay mechanics), or suffer greatly from it.  

 If by the same old Zelda, I guess you mean it uses the same formula, since it's the same genre, like having lock on targeting, items like rupees and such. But you play it in a new way, which is the equivalent of a brand new story for a movie or book. It's all 1:1 gameplay. It is a major revamp, from a videogame point of view.   

 Think of it of the difference between the older FPS and the new ones where you can now look in all directions, and you aren't tied down to going front, back, and looking left and right. I get what you are saying, but that's not really taking advantage of what videogames are. "

Yes, the player is involved the story by their actions but it's nowhere near creation or even an effect, especially in Zelda where the world is utterly static till you've reached the next checkpoint. Sure, you could play arrow intensive or just go in swinging but that's not exactly creating a story and a definitely has no real bearing on the world around you. 
 
You're taking the story example too far. Phoenix Wright is basically an interactive storybook and Heavy Rain a lot like a movie but if you look at something like Red Dead Redemption, a game that isn't perfect by any means, but the story greatly enhanced the incredibly GTA-esque gameplay. Even GTA, which revolves around the same formula keeps itself interesting by having a drastically different story and character set up each time around. Zelda has remained near enough identical with the big changes still having direct analogs to the other games. 
 
The lock on targeting and rupees are fine, it's the surrounding game. You can say we've seen nothing but I'd bet that it's scouring temples for items till the halfway point when everything increases in scope. That's what Zelda has been doing for years and without any kind interesting story around it, it feels almost like going through the motions. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is so stripped down that it's become nothing more than a whimsical obstacle course, Zelda seems like it's becoming the same way. 
 
You're ignoring big difference though like characters and plot. The ending of Call of Duty 4 could have been done in Quake but it would have meant nothing. If my ideas aren't taking advantage of what videogames are then I can't see how Zelda is either. 
 

"  and pretty much started the nazi zombie, firefight, survival mode trend  "

I love and greatly enjoy both the Gears of War series and the Legend of Zelda series, never complained about either one because frankly they are a ton of  fun.

" I can't fathom why it struck you as odd. The Gears of War series has a narrative which follows between 1, 2 and obviously 3 so the games are going to come out every two or three years so people don't start whinging about when the follow up is going to be. This story structure and character building that happens in the games, along with new gameplay features and set pieces keep the game fresh and interesting. The Legend of Zelda repeatedly puts the player in a character that looks, acts and is named exactly the same as the guy in the game before in a quest that ends with him saving a princess that looks, acts and is named exactly the same as the game before and so consistently feels repetitious. Similarly, the past several games have all worked around the exact same structure of getting items and McGuffins to unlock the latter half of the game where the process continues on a slightly grander scale. 
 
The weirdest part is that there's usually only one of these Zelda games per generation so you'd expect them to be more advanced, coming from such a 'genius' as Shigeru Miyamoto, but instead they are the same game with a different shade of green on Hyrule field, just spaced a bit more openly so you aren't thinking of it as a rehash. "