227 replies to this topic

[Duke Serkol]

here's a great mind****: Link in certain games is proven to be capable of travelling through time with the aid of magic. Imagine he's a total jackass, and just goes to the future to acquire a train, brings it back with him, and everyone's all "WADDA HELL IS THAT BOY".

Eh, that is quite the amusing mindf*** (only three more posts to view the full word )

my impression of Ocarina was that it shamelessly borrowed again and again from LttP before it. As I see it, it settled the series right down into the hole of repetition Aonuma's been accused of digging with the current games.

That much is true (minus the shamelessly adjective perhaps... I think it did borrow a lot but in a classy way) and it is why I still prefer ALttP. But nonetheless, Ocarina is certainly one of the best games ever made.

[Psytronic]

Hey, I wouldn't say it's a bad game by any means. I'd just call it the opening of the floodgates of copycats. I felt like the game failed to live up to the hype surrounding and preceding its release, especially concerning Hyrule field. I expected a lot more, to say the least.

[Duke Serkol]

Personally I don't think the game was overhyped, as good as it was (though yeah, Hyrule field IS terribly bland... but that's perfectly forgivable).

I see what you mean though: it's the same way I feel about MM - excellent game, but it paved the way for short Zeldas and greater anachronisms.

Edited by Duke Serkol, 09 April 2009 - 12:17 PM.

[Psytronic]

I'm excited about the prospect of Spirit Tracks, but only because I get to make lame puns:

Edited by Psytronic, 09 April 2009 - 12:26 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

And I get to die a little inside with each new one.

[Kiddiecat]

I don't really see why people are so upset about the train YET. We know there's going to be a train, OK, that's fine, we won't know if it turns out to be a good or bad idea until we play it though. For all we know the train could be the idea of some wierdo from the future or something.

Besides, there were telephones and neon lights in other Zelda games. Even if the telephones took place in a game that was just a dream, there were still neon lights.

One thing that has to be considered is the context in which this "modern" technology has been placed. Aside from the debatable Tower of the Gods example, most other uses have been entirely peripheral. They've appeared in only single environments, sometimes serving comic effect, like the general store in Twilight Princess. This is a different context to ST's train, which is fundamental to both the game and its advertising. The train changes the fantasy feeling much more than a single neon light in a random part of OoT does.

I was starting to think I was the only one who noticed the neon lights in the bombchu shop.

---
Anyways, we don't really know that the train is going to be used in between every dungeon of the game either, if you watch, you'll see that link is in a conductor's outfit on the train, yet the green cloths in dungeons. Does this mean he's going to be changing his cloths everytime he boards the train to go somewhere? I thought he was supposed to be saving Hyrule or something, and he's changing cloths to ride a train? I guess it could turn out to be another one of those Zelda mysteries though, like where exactly DOES Link keep all this stuff he collects?

[SteveT]

Find me one actual shred of evidence that Ocarina is the stagnation of the Zelda series at its vertex, and I'll take it all back. Everything.

Vertex? No. More of a sign that innovation within the series was winding down.

Exhibit A:

In LttP, you collect three arbitrary magical artifacts to unlock the Master Sword and open up a second version of the gameworld where the bulk of the game takes place.

I OoT, you collect three arbitrary magical artifacts to unlock the Master Sword and open up a second version of the gameworld where the bulk of the game takes place.

Exhibit B:

In LttP, the item found in any given dungeon is typically the key to beating that dungeon's boss.

In OoT, the item found in any given dungeon is typically the key to beating that dungeon's boss.


This did not appear in the first two Zelda games, but returned in nearly every game afterward.

Exhibit C:

In LttP, a major boss is defeated by using the Master Sword to ricochet his magical energy balls of doom back at him. This boss fight occurs once about 1/3 into the game, and again just before the final boss.


In OoT, a major boss is defeated by using the Master Sword to ricochet his magical energy balls of doom back at him. This boss fight occurs once about 1/3 into the game, and again just before the final boss.

This did not appear in the first two Zelda games, but returned in nearly every game afterward.


And that's not even going into puzzles or locales.

Yes, OoT had some innovations (Epona springs to mind), but it was evolutionary--without an r in front.

[Duke Serkol]

In LttP, a major boss is defeated by using the Master Sword to ricochet his magical energy balls of doom back at him.

That mechanic I think is actually an evolution of the fight against Carok in AoL (with the reflect magic and the shield instead of the sword)

And that's not even going into puzzles or locales.

And in terms of locations even ALttP is not completely "innocent"
(Not that I think this was bad until after OoT, just pointing it out)

Edited by Duke Serkol, 09 April 2009 - 06:34 PM.

[Raien]

Fun fact: If you cut anything up (no matter whether it is art, entertainment, story, technology, etc) into its most basic properties, you can see those properties in various works of the past. To say that something is not innovative based on such an argument, as SteveT has done, is a fallacy. For example:

-LoZ is not the first game to use swords or items.
-LoZ is not the first game to use a top-down perspective
-LoZ is not the first game to have an open-ended environment.
-LoZ is not the first game to have shops or collectible money.
-LoZ is not the first game to have secret areas.

I could go on. I could honestly use the fallacy to make it look like LoZ completely lacks innovation, despite that it was incredibly significant for its time.

If you really wanted to make a detailed case for whether OoT is not innovative, you should also look at how OoT has connected its various functions, and how those functions have changed in both interaction and atmosphere in the new 3D environment. Analyse the game as a whole, not just selective bits of the game. Of course, this ultimately asks the player to judge whether the game "feels" fresh and innovative and completely breaks any suggestion of objectivity. But it also allows players to better determine what they themselves and others consider significant to the "feel" of a video game. For example, I think most of the OoT-fans felt the impact of the 3D environment, whereas most of the OoT-haters felt the 3D was a superficial change.

Edited by Raien, 09 April 2009 - 07:52 PM.

[SteveT]

To say that something is not innovative based on such an argument, as SteveT has done, is a fallacy. For example:

-LoZ is not the first game to use swords or items.
-LoZ is not the first game to use a top-down perspective
-LoZ is not the first game to have an open-ended environment.
-LoZ is not the first game to have shops or collectible money.
-LoZ is not the first game to have secret areas.

So are you suggesting that the items I mentioned are archetypal elements of video games or fantasy stories? If so, please list the precedents and examples of their continued inclusion in modern games. If not, I am forced to conclude that they are, in fact, not archetypes but game elements specific to the Zelda franchise that were lifted directly from Link to the Past and included in OoT and, in some cases, included in the sequels.

I can see Exhibit A being considered an archetype; collecting magical MacGuffins whose purpose is to advance the plot certainly appears in many works of fantasy...but that doesn't change the fact that the implementation was nearly identical across the two games.

If you really wanted to make a detailed case for whether OoT is not innovative, you should also look at how OoT has connected its various functions, and how those functions have changed in both interaction and atmosphere in the new 3D environment.

In six words or less: they adjusted the camera angle.

Edited by SteveT, 09 April 2009 - 08:02 PM.

[Raien]

So are you suggesting that the items I mentioned are archetypal elements of video games or fantasy stories? If so, please list the precedents and examples of their continued inclusion in modern games. If not, I am forced to conclude that they are, in fact, not archetypes but game elements specific to the Zelda franchise that were lifted directly from Link to the Past and included in OoT and, in some cases, included in the sequels.

I'm not referring to archetypes. I'm referring to the fact that you can deconstruct any text to make a case that it is not innovative. It doesn't matter whether you're comparing two games within the same franchise, or within the same medium, it's possible with anything. This is a fallacy I've seen used in film theory, and the biggest case against it is the fact that it ignores what matters most to people; emotional impact. People still refer to innovation because there are always new ways to create emotional responses in an audience, even if you're recycling the same fundamentals in order to achieve that new response.

In six words or less: they adjusted the camera angle.

What's your point? You've pointed out the difference in process, but you haven't touched upon the impact that this has on the way in which OoT immerses the player in the virtual world.

Edited by Raien, 09 April 2009 - 08:30 PM.

[SteveT]

Emotional response? A new camera angle changing the subjective feeling of immersion?

I'm out of my element in this thread. Have a nice day.

[Selena]

I'm not referring to archetypes. I'm referring to the fact that you can deconstruct any text to make a case that it is not innovative. It doesn't matter whether you're comparing two games within the same franchise, or within the same medium, it's possible with anything. This is a fallacy I've seen used in film theory, and the biggest case against it is the fact that it ignores what matters most to people; emotional impact. People still refer to innovation because there are always new ways to create emotional responses in an audience, even if you're recycling the same fundamentals in order to achieve that new response.

Problem: Deconstructing any text/movie/game to make the case that it's not innovative often requires stretching or vague statements. Sort of like the ones you made about LoZ.

Collecting three (green-red-blue) trinkets, unlocking the Master Sword, entering a new version of the world, and collecting more useless trinkets in order to fight Ganon is extremely specific. Also painfully obvious. Ocarina did have its innovative elements, but how can we not agree on the fact that the actual quest follows the exact same formula? For however new the setting or camera was, what goes on in the game itself is pretty redundant.


Goodfellas and Once Upon a Time in America are not ripoffs of The Godfather just because there are gangsters. A space opera about a reluctant son taking over his father's Martian crime syndicate, killing a high ranking police officer, losing his hotheaded older brother in a bloody hit, and then assassinating the heads of five rival crime families, however, would be a Godfather ripoff. Even with the new setting and potentially awesome looking camera tricks.

[Raien]

Emotional response? A new camera angle changing the subjective feeling of immersion?

Yes. The ability to look up, down, left, right creates a feeling of being in a virtual environment. The involvement of the camera in immersion has been so integral to video game design that I honestly can't see how you haven't come into contact with it. I take it that you also didn't see what the fuss was about when Metroid Prime got critical praise and numerous awards.

Problem: Deconstructing any text/movie/game to make the case that it's not innovative often requires stretching or vague statements. Sort of like the ones you made about LoZ.

No, I only made vague statements because I'm not going to bother doing a fuckton of research to make a simple point. As I said, this isn't something I just made up, this is a line of reasoning that has been used for decades in film theory. And what's worse is that points raised through this tactic tend to be incredibly selective based on the person raising them. As I pointed out before, all the OoT-haters appear to be repelled by the notion that 3D could be anything more than a superficial addition.

Edited by Raien, 09 April 2009 - 09:26 PM.

[SteveT]

Who said anything about hate? It's was an excellent game.

It just used a previous game as a template.

Funny you bring up Metroid Prime. There's a world of difference between an over-the-shoulder adaptation with occasional FPS arrow-shooting and a full First Person Game where even menus and displays are integrated into the game world.

Edited by SteveT, 09 April 2009 - 09:52 PM.

[Selena]

No, I only made vague statements because I'm not going to bother doing a fuckton of research to make a simple point. As I said, this isn't something I just made up, this is a line of reasoning that has been used for decades in film theory. And what's worse is that points raised through this tactic tend to be incredibly selective based on the person raising them. As I pointed out before, all the OoT-haters appear to be repelled by the notion that 3D could be anything more than a superficial addition.

I don't doubt that the line of reasoning exists. I've heard it too. Which is how I know that it often requires very vague and over-generalized statements in order to work. But again, that's mostly irrelevant. It's not the case with Ocarina and ALttP - their plots are blatantly similar, far more than most games or movies are. If a different company had made an Ocarina-style game instead, Nintendo probably could have sued them for plagiarizing ALttP. I'm not an OoT hater. I love OoT. It was a vital part of my childhood. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that it follows the plot and formula of ALttP. Just like my love of BioShock doesn't blind me to the fact that it happens to follow System Shock 2's plot and formula.

The 3D changes the gameplay and adds another layer of enjoyment. It has absolutely no effect on the plot.

[Masamune]

Take away Link's green clothes, body, and limbs and you have Pac-Man.

Make Pac-Man a single dot and you've got Secret Collect.

Make that single dot into the stroke of your pencil, and you've got a maze puzzle.

Make that maze a single stroke, and you've got a line.

THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE.

Edited by Masamune, 09 April 2009 - 10:07 PM.

[CID Farwin]

I'm curious, Raien, as to your opinion on the Inheritance Cycle concerning this.

Backing up to closer on-topic, It's a train. So what? We've seen two minutes of the game, which is by no means enough to say whether or not it interrupts the illusion of the game. Does it feel awkward compared to the rest of the games? Yes. A little. Does it feel awkward in the context of the game? Well, from the trailer, it actually looks like it might work.

[Psytronic]

Zelda: Ocarina of Time: Canyon simulator. Totally realistic simulation of canyons in 3D!

I touched on the subject with the intention to indicate that OoT was distinctly unoriginal both in plot and in gameplay, just as the newer games are accused of being. Ocarina simply came too soon for its own good - there is so much Nintendo simply could not do with their environments on the N64 and did not do with Ocarina. Twilight Princess seems to be the game that folks are pointing their fingers at, and they are not being the least bit objective.

Unlike Ocarina before it, Twilight did not simply pretend to have large environments, with day and night both spanning a measly several minutes of gameplay - it actually managed to mandate transportation. The black smears on the ground in Ocarina were not immersive, they were not caverns in a seamless environment. The flat walls with textures pretending to be trees high atop cliffs in the Lost Woods did not amount to a forested environment. Considering the 3D aspect of the game, the world of Ocarina entirely lacked artistic grace. Battles were made awkward with OoT's classically obtuse battle engine, and the player's inability to handle larger amounts of enemies lead to their infrequency - if that was not already determined by the limitations of the platform.

I would suggest that the only thing the game managed to do over LttP, and do well, was further incorporate NPCs into the plot and gameplay. That being said, I am not a fan of NPCs overall, and could do well without them. The blatantly one-sided conversations they represent in Zelda are not particularly immersive.


Just as well, the use of Ocarina to allude to the immersion of Metroid: Prime is clever but grasping. Metroid: Prime was not released to operate on an engine that crippled the environment of Super Metroid.

Edited by Psytronic, 10 April 2009 - 12:47 AM.

[Alastair]

I would suggest that the only thing the game managed to do over LttP, and do well, was further incorporate NPCs into the plot and gameplay. That being said, I am not a fan of NPCs overall, and could do well without them. The blatantly one-sided conversations they represent in Zelda are not particularly immersive.

I've not read a couple of pages in the middle of this topic, so forgive me if this has already been discussed and dismissed. No-one seems to be mentioning OoT's 'Z' taretting system. This is so intuitive that it is easy to forget that it was first introduced in OoT, and has been re-used in every fully 3D Zelda since. Other innovations were also required by the 3D envirnment, such as the ability to look around from a first-person perspective. ALttP possibly is the more innovative game (OoT certainly owes a lot to it, as do all later Zeldas, 2D or 3D), but it is inaccurate to say OoT is lacking in innovation. The 3D environment could have been implemented in a number of different ways, but just happens to have been done in a way that has generally remained the same since then.

[Psytronic]

I did reference the targeting system. While I agree it's one of the few ways for them to really go about it in a 3D game, I do not consider it even remotely forgetable. Hence my mentioning how it detracted from the game's level of immersion, and helped perpetuate the feeling that this was indeed a game environment.

The same could be said for the complex and somewhat invasive button/menu display in the Wii version of TP, although it would be near on impossible to make a game without some sort of on-screen status display.

[Raien]

Okay, let me clarify my stance on this debate one more time.

Whether a game feels innovative or immersive is completely personal and subjective. Two people can observe the exact same property in a game and come to two completely different opinions about it. So when people here actually refer to a particular property, why do they simply assume it supports their opinion? Selena, why do you presume that the similarities you referenced should be considered important as to whether a game feels fresh and innovative? SteveT, why do you presume that the 3D addition should be considered superficial? This assumption is the fallacy in question.

Now, to be fair, I wouldn't have a problem with these lists if people used them to elaborate on their personal feelings; this list-making is something we all do. But when people use this tactic to blur the line between their personal subjective opinion and objective points, then the fallacy appears. And as spunky-monkey and SteveT have shown, it leads to arrogance and contempt for other opinions (seriously guys, people don't like having their opinions scoffed at. It's insulting).

Edited by Raien, 11 April 2009 - 06:28 AM.

[Kwicky Koala]

Whether a game feels innovative or immersive is completely personal and subjective. Two people can observe the exact same property in a game and come to two completely different opinions about it.

I agree with this. That's why I don't get involved in these debates. Incidentally I'm thinking this game will be another PH, not bad but not great either. I've pretty much given up on trying to get the feeling again, maybe we should be giving way to the young fans and seeing what they say. Not taking their ideas up I mean, cause they're stupid, but seeing whether these new Zelda games affect them in the same way we were affected by the NES, SNES, and N64 games. (It seems there aren't any young Zelda fans around here anymore, I joined the forum when I was 14). That is, if you're interested in the health of the soul of the series, rather than nitpicking how groundbreaking previous titles were, or witchhunting any potential anachronisms in the medieval setting.

[SteveT]

Now, to be fair, I wouldn't have a problem with these lists if people used them to elaborate on their personal feelings; this list-making is something we all do. But when people use this tactic to blur the line between their personal subjective opinion and objective points, then the fallacy appears. And as spunky-monkey and SteveT have shown, it leads to arrogance and contempt for other opinions (seriously guys, people don't like having their opinions scoffed at. It's insulting).

See, here's the difference between you and I as far as I can tell:

I was interested in looking at facts. You were interested in stating your opinion.

I answered the challenge of giving evidence that OoT wasn't all that innovative. You used a Straw Man to ignore that evidence, and now you're onto ad hominems. Obviously this isn't going anywhere.

Every now and then, I read this comic and stop posting at LA for a while. (from xkcd)



This is one of those times. (EDIT: Ok, maybe not, but it should have been.)

I've not read a couple of pages in the middle of this topic, so forgive me if this has already been discussed and dismissed. No-one seems to be mentioning OoT's 'Z' taretting system. This is so intuitive that it is easy to forget that it was first introduced in OoT, and has been re-used in every fully 3D Zelda since. Other innovations were also required by the 3D envirnment, such as the ability to look around from a first-person perspective. ALttP possibly is the more innovative game (OoT certainly owes a lot to it, as do all later Zeldas, 2D or 3D), but it is inaccurate to say OoT is lacking in innovation. The 3D environment could have been implemented in a number of different ways, but just happens to have been done in a way that has generally remained the same since then.

Yeah, I think you pretty much hit it. Most innovations in OoT came from answering the question "How do we make LttP work as a 3D game?"

Edited by SteveT, 12 April 2009 - 06:40 PM.

[Raien]

I answered the challenge of giving evidence that OoT wasn't all that innovative. You used a Straw Man to ignore that evidence, and now you're onto ad hominems. Obviously this isn't going anywhere.

The challenge was a stupid idea in the first place. Whether a game feels innovative is subjective opinion; you can't "prove" it as if it were something objective. I'm not ignoring your evidence, I'm saying it proves nothing other than what you believe justifies your personal opinion. Whether anyone else agrees with your list is their opinion.

Edited by Raien, 11 April 2009 - 11:02 AM.

[Average Gamer]

Exhibit C:

In LttP, a major boss is defeated by using the Master Sword to ricochet his magical energy balls of doom back at him. This boss fight occurs once about 1/3 into the game, and again just before the final boss.


In OoT, a major boss is defeated by using the Master Sword to ricochet his magical energy balls of doom back at him. This boss fight occurs once about 1/3 into the game, and again just before the final boss.

This did not appear in the first two Zelda games, but returned in nearly every game afterward.

Actually, Carock in AoL had to be defeated by reflecting his magical blasts back at him, though you used the reflect spell with your shield and not a sword swipe.

[SOAP]

Be fair Steve T. You could reflect Ganondorf's attacks with a bottle too.

[SteveT]

Only because they removed the bug net.

[Average Gamer]

Only because they removed the bug net.

You know, considering how you bottled stuff in ALttP, the Bug-Catching Net was really just ALttP's equivalent of OoT's bottle to some extent.

[SteveT]

See? They couldn't even innovate with the glitches