52 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

^ I'm not sure I'd call it that way. I would imagine its very hard for Nintendo to process all of the things a global fanbase is saying and sort the suggestions and complaints into whether they come from the "right" or "wrong" kind of fans. In my opinion the game designers just need to block out all this stuff and just make the game they want to make. I mean, they're Nintendo, they should know how to make a good game.

This means, however, also abandoning the business models which I would say are the true reason behind the decline of Zelda. I've not played SS but isn't Fi the result of Ninty going for the casual market and treating the novice gamers like idiots again? I know Nintendo is a business but it was a business in 2000 when Majora's Mask came out, or in 2003 when the Wind Waker was realeased. I like those games because they took huge risks and didn't think about the fan reaction, and both I'd say paid off in the end.

It may be unrealistic but I'd like it if the developers abandoned their understandably confused ideas of what fans want, and the wider Nintendo business plan, and take a risk with the next Zelda. But having not played SS I admit I'm only speaking as an observer - which brings me to ask, if SS is a poor Zelda game, why did it get such glowing reviews?

Yes, this. Maybe saying "wrong" fans is poor word choice on my part but I agree. They need to block out all of that noise and just make the games the way they want to instead of trying to guess what they think we want. Because we're way too heterogeneous of a bunch for them to please all of us. They just need to go back to the way they were that mad us love them in the first place. That is, being risk takers and innovators.

[Raien]

Exactly. People complain that Nintendo changes/keeps only the wrong things but that's only because they listen to the wrong fans. There are people who seriously got pissed because SS Link is right-handed as if Nintendo committed some great blasphemy. The only people are should be mad about that is left-handed players who don't get a lefty option and have to play either right handed or deal with Link's right hand trying to track the movements of the wii-remote in their left hand.

Seems to me the problem is is that Nintendo is trying please both casual in-experienced gamers and unreasonable purists while losing touch with some sort of middle ground between the two polar extremes.

You're sort of on the right track but not quite. The simplest analogy is that Nintendo is becoming like a modern comic book company (at least with regard to Mario and Zelda). It relies increasingly heavily on old properties with brand recognition, it hires fanboy creators with the understanding that they will "be creative" and make whatever they want, it devotes attention to the most hardcore fanboys who obsess over little details. But most importantly, its audience is getting increasingly older and gradually smaller. It's dying.

The problem with Nintendo dedicating all their efforts to hardcore fanboys is that they don't represent the disinterested players. The people who've stopped playing Zelda are not the people who post on Zelda fan forums. The lost Zelda fans don't give feedback to Nintendo. Nintendo actually has no way to react to disinterest. There are no "trends" to be found in disinterest.

But there is a solution. For every entertainment franchise, the qualities that created the fanbase are the same qualities that sustain it years later. As long as new entries stay true to the original, the franchise can continue to create new fans and at the same time sustain the existing fanbase. Classic Zelda has those qualities, which is why each new entry created huge interest. Modern Zelda does not have those qualities, which is why each new entry is creating increasing disinterest. Most of Skyward Sword's fans will have grown up with Ocarina of Time. It's not strong enough to create new fans.

In my opinion the game designers just need to block out all this stuff and just make the game they want to make.

But that's exactly what they are doing. The Wind Waker was Aonuma's passion project by his own admission. The only occasion when the Zelda developers ever talked about doing things just for customers was with Twilight Princess, and that didn't extend far beyond the art style and story. Modern Zelda is all about watching the developers please themselves.

I've not played SS but isn't Fi the result of Ninty going for the casual market and treating the novice gamers like idiots again?

According to Miyamoto/Aonuma, the Modern Zelda games were made insultingly easy because they found that many players were not completing Ocarina of Time. Many players were actually stopping before they saw the end of the game. Miyamoto/Aonuma concluded that the games were too difficult and made all the later games after Majora's Mask much easier.

But players didn't stop playing OoT because it was too hard. They stopped playing because they didn't enjoy it enough. So instead of dealing with the actual problem by bringing back more Classic Zelda elements, Nintendo compounded the problem by making Zelda less challenging and thus less interesting. Modern Zelda games have not made nearly the impact that the early Zelda games did.


PS: By the way, can we stop asking Nintendo to "take risks"? "Taking risks" is just another way of saying "I don't what I'm doing". It assumes that making good entertainment is some kind of black magic that nobody can understand so therefore creators have to be completely random about it. Nintendo shouldn't be taking risks, they should be making an effort to learn why the Classic Zelda games created passion and what they can do to reignite that passion. There's nothing risky about doing what works.

Edited by Raien, 16 January 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[SOAP]

I guess the Comic Book company analogy makes sense.

Still I thought SS made a few steps in the right direction. I thought it was the right amount of challenging and I'm not referring to the controls. I thought the dungeons were pretty neat and required you to think a little. Some people complain about Fi ruining the challenge. I ignored her most of the time anyways. I'm only pissed about Fi because she could've been easily fiable if she spoke out her dialogue much in the same way Navi shouts out "Hey Listen." People used to have this grudge against Navi because of that but really that's a whole lot less annoying then stopping the game just to pull up a dialogue box to inform the player that Link is in fact on fire.

[Fin]

i dunno, i always find unsolicited advice intrusive whether it actively stops me from playing the game or merely goes on passively in the background.

[SOAP]

i dunno, i always find unsolicited advice intrusive whether it actively stops me from playing the game or merely goes on passively in the background.

Hmmm. I guess it could but it not as game breaking stopping you in your tracks to pull out animation where Fi has to first come out of your sword and then a dialogue box appears. She's still Link's guide it makes sense that she'd be concerned that her master is on fire or low on hearts but the way it's executed was poor. If she had actual voice acting and not Hylian gibberish, they could ditch the dialogue box and just have her cry out warnings in emergencies such as "Link! You're on fire. Quickly, wave your arms to shake off the flames." Or "Link! You're low on hearts. I suggest cutting your losses and fleeing these foes immediately!" where the player can still react immediately without waiting for Fi to finish what's she's saying to do something about it. In non-emergencies, Fi could simply make a simple note of the surroundings such as "Master, I sense something odd about this room. Would you like hear about it?" In which case you could simply ignore her and go about your business or you select her designated button on the wii remote and THEN she can appear out Link's sword and offer whatever advice she has in a text box. That way her advice is not given when you don't want it but you're aware of when she does have advice in case you do.

Edited by SOAP, 16 January 2012 - 08:08 PM.

[Raien]

Still I thought SS made a few steps in the right direction. I thought it was the right amount of challenging and I'm not referring to the controls. I thought the dungeons were pretty neat and required you to think a little.

The problem with the dungeon puzzles is that they have no depth or replayability. The first playthrough might be interesting but once you know how the puzzles are solved, there's nothing to engage with on repeat playthroughs. You're just going through the motions. And if you're a seasoned Modern Zelda player, chances are the puzzles will all follow the same logic as previous Zelda games, meaning that even the first playthrough is going to be somewhat unengaging because the solutions are predictable.

What gives a game depth is not "puzzles" but "strategies", and strategies depend upon giving the player lots of choices. For example, the original Legend of Zelda dungeons had rooms with difficult enemies that moved unpredictably. Because of how many enemies there are and how they move, the situation constantly changes and there's no single method that can "solve" it. In order to beat your enemies, you need to observe their movements and devise strategies that allow you to hit them without getting hurt yourself. The spontaneity of new situations is what makes replaying the game fun. That's why I think it's a shame that 3D Zelda lost the crowd control aspect of the combat. You just fight enemies one at a time and it becomes more like a puzzle because there are so few choices and more "correct" choices (usually timing puzzles).

Classic Zelda is simple to learn, difficult to master. It has simple gameplay but has lots of depth.
Modern Zelda is difficult to learn, simple to master. It has complicated gameplay but has no depth.

[CID Farwin]

It's not a matter of Nintendo listening to the wrong fans/needing to do their own thing.

It's a matter of they need to listen to the fans, but not necessarily give them what they are saying. Because while the customer may [mostly] be right, chances are they don't really know what they want, or at least can't articulate it well.

Take Wind Waker, for example. The reaction to the art style was generally negative or neutral, with a few positives. Instead of Nintendo taking this to heart, they instead blame the fans who don't like the art style, and have spent years trying to convince them of their error.

Basically, it comes down to giving the customers what they want, but not necessarily what they say they want. They might not know what they want, but they know when they get it or not.

Actually, I think I just figured out what's wrong with the game. It's entirely in mid-tones.



If video games are art, then Skyward Sword qualifies as "bad art"

No, I'm not nit-picking about art style, I'm saying it's representative of the real problem.

The game has no 'contrast.'


(and no, I'm not comparing Ocarina of Time to Rebrandt because I think it's a masterpiece, I'm comparing it because Ocarina of Time has contrast.)

[joeymartin64]

Still I thought SS made a few steps in the right direction. I thought it was the right amount of challenging and I'm not referring to the controls. I thought the dungeons were pretty neat and required you to think a little.

The problem with the dungeon puzzles is that they have no depth or replayability. The first playthrough might be interesting but once you know how the puzzles are solved, there's nothing to engage with on repeat playthroughs. You're just going through the motions. And if you're a seasoned Modern Zelda player, chances are the puzzles will all follow the same logic as previous Zelda games, meaning that even the first playthrough is going to be somewhat unengaging because the solutions are predictable.

What gives a game depth is not "puzzles" but "strategies", and strategies depend upon giving the player lots of choices. For example, the original Legend of Zelda dungeons had rooms with difficult enemies that moved unpredictably. Because of how many enemies there are and how they move, the situation constantly changes and there's no single method that can "solve" it. In order to beat your enemies, you need to observe their movements and devise strategies that allow you to hit them without getting hurt yourself. The spontaneity of new situations is what makes replaying the game fun. That's why I think it's a shame that 3D Zelda lost the crowd control aspect of the combat. You just fight enemies one at a time and it becomes more like a puzzle because there are so few choices and more "correct" choices (usually timing puzzles).

Classic Zelda is simple to learn, difficult to master. It has simple gameplay but has lots of depth.
Modern Zelda is difficult to learn, simple to master. It has complicated gameplay but has no depth.

That's a good way of putting it. I've thought something similar about boss battles for a long time now. I replayed ALttP shortly after beating SS, and while a few things stood out, this was one of the biggest. The bosses in the older games (and, to be fair, probably the more recent-ish 2D ones, too, though I don't remember much about them) had action to them. You weren't just doing a step-by-step process to stun the thing then whack it a few times. You were trying to avoid damage and inflict it at the same time. There were some puzzle boss elements (breaking Helmaroc King's mask, for example), but it wasn't as avoid-stun-attack-rinse-repeat as basically every single boss since OoT has been.

Edited by joeymartin64, 17 January 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[Fin]

i think 3d zelda needs to lose the target lock-on button. zelda's system only really works well in one-on-one combat, but switching targets quickly in a fight rarely works well. i've played plenty of games where the character automatically focuses on enemies when your sword is drawn, and swapping targets is as easy as pointing the control stick in the other guy's direction. much more fluid. zelda needs enemies to swarm you again, and to do it well they need to update the targeting system or lose it altogether.

[Raien]

That's a good way of putting it. I've thought something similar about boss battles for a long time now. I replayed ALttP shortly after beating SS, and while a few things stood out, this was one of the biggest. The bosses in the older games (and, to be fair, probably the more recent-ish 2D ones, too, though I don't remember much about them) had action to them. You weren't just doing a step-by-step process to stun the thing then whack it a few times. You were trying to avoid damage and inflict it at the same time. There were some puzzle boss elements (breaking Helmaroc King's mask, for example), but it wasn't as avoid-stun-attack-rinse-repeat as basically every single boss since OoT has been.

Boss battles have really become boring since they started incorporating puzzles. On occasion I see people on forums actually question whether adventure games should continue to have bosses and they always cite the predictable patterns as their reason. I don't think most of them are old enough to remember when bosses were actually fun and unpredictable.

In my opinion, the last big game to have really good bosses was NSMBWii. While they could all be defeated the same way, it was refreshing to not have to think about patterns and just react to whatever the boss was doing. The final boss was particularly brilliant. Even though you couldn't actually hurt Bowser, the whole situation was epic, thrilling and very challenging. And just as you near the end, you hear Princess Peach shout "Mariooo!!!" Awesome.



I think it's the best final boss of any Mario game, 2D or 3D. This is the standard that everyone should now be trying to match.

Edited by Raien, 17 January 2012 - 06:07 PM.

[Fin]

i fucking loved that boss. most epic ending to a mario game ever. and the fact that it incorporated mario's core platforming gameplay so heavily is half of what made it so sublime.

[ganonlord6000]

Exactly. People complain that Nintendo changes/keeps only the wrong things but that's only because they listen to the wrong fans. There are people who seriously got pissed because SS Link is right-handed as if Nintendo committed some great blasphemy. The only people are should be mad about that is left-handed players who don't get a lefty option and have to play either right handed or deal with Link's right hand trying to track the movements of the wii-remote in their left hand.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); "><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">Seems to me the problem is is that Nintendo is trying please both casual in-experienced gamers and unreasonable purists while losing touch with some sort of middle ground between the two polar extremes.

That would explain everything since TWW. And as for the left handed players being mad about there only being a right handed option, come on!! It's not a big deal. Just use your right hand! I can say that since I am a lefty.

i think 3d zelda needs to lose the target lock-on button. zelda's system only really works well in one-on-one combat, but switching targets quickly in a fight rarely works well. i've played plenty of games where the character automatically focuses on enemies when your sword is drawn, and swapping targets is as easy as pointing the control stick in the other guy's direction. much more fluid. zelda needs enemies to swarm you again, and to do it well they need to update the targeting system or lose it altogether.

Losing it might be a bad idea. Updating it, on the other hand, might not. At the very least, an option for autolock will do, as well.

That's a good way of putting it. I've thought something similar about boss battles for a long time now. I replayed ALttP shortly after beating SS, and while a few things stood out, this was one of the biggest. The bosses in the older games (and, to be fair, probably the more recent-ish 2D ones, too, though I don't remember much about them) had action to them. You weren't just doing a step-by-step process to stun the thing then whack it a few times. You were trying to avoid damage and inflict it at the same time. There were some puzzle boss elements (breaking Helmaroc King's mask, for example), but it wasn't as avoid-stun-attack-rinse-repeat as basically every single boss since OoT has been.

That is a problem I've had with the recent Zeldas for awhile. The bosses are just an easy puzzle, with some of SS's being the exceptions. The 2D games definitely had harder bosses. Another problem is that Nintendo seemed to take OOT's success to their heads and they used that same boss strategy and even game layout in every 3D Zelda game since then. OOT was great, but it would be so much better for all of us if Nintendo didn't try to copy what made OOT great and come up with something different. As much as I like TP, that is its number one flaw. SS is a step in the right direction, but it isn't quite there, yet.

And as for the voice acting thing, I actually think it would be a good idea for some of the NPCs or future sidekicks, but I really don't care, either way. The only thing I'd have a problem with is if Link started talking.

Edited by ganonlord6000, 17 January 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Showsni]

So, as a swordsman, I would be irritated beyond belief at the swordplay? Damn.

Have you ever played Wii Sports Resort? Most of the swordplay is like that. Not the duel swordplay in Resort - the Speed Slice game. A fruit drops down with an arrow showing you which direction to cut it in, then you slice in that direction (horizontal, vertical or diagonal) to win. That's the swordplay in SS. An enemy holds his sword in a specific direction, you slice the right way (horizontal, vertical or diagonal) to win.

You're better off with ranged attacks, though; stand back, use a Skyward Strike, then use a finishing blow.

I guess I tended to ignore Fi's repeating everything, though it's true that it was unnecessary and a little annoying. And what was the point of that stone with the videos? I forgot all about it, then randomly ran into it and saw I had loads of new videos to watch, all of things I'd easily figured out by myself. Why did they even add that into the game? It's just a lot of hand holding throughout. I guess the point a lot of people are making is Nintendo needs to trust in the intelligence of its players more, and stop catering for three year olds.

I must say I thought Fi was going to add a dowsing option for batteries at one point.
"Master, you're runnning low on hearts. Would you like me to add Hearts as an option on your dowsing menu?"
"Master, your Wii Remote is running low on battery. Would you like me to add Batteries as an option on your dowsing menu?"

[SOAP]

On occasion I see people on forums actually question whether adventure games should continue to have bosses and they always cite the predictable patterns as their reason. I don't think most of them are old enough to remember when bosses were actually fun and unpredictable.

Who the hell even says that?

I'm sorry, not that I think you're lying but I have serious doubts about that one.

In any case I think we've both can agree that the new games are lacking in something but we're going to fundamentally disagree on what that is because we both came into the series at different times. You seem to come from the older generation that grew up with the original LoZ and ALttP. I came later with games like OoT and MM. Things like autolock and one-on-one battles and puzzles I don't see a problem with. If you don't like autolock, don't use it. I don't think I ever used it except in certian boss fights. Perhaps they could be more challenging if they didn't require autolocking. Dealing with crowd control never made them game funner or more interesting. When I did play older games like loZ and AoL, that's one thing that was a major turn off was the barrage of enemies with nothing much to break up one fight to the next. That and I felt like I lacked any motivation to keep killing monsters until I found something useful. I guess the puzzle-ness of the newer games spoiled me.

I still hold that SS took several steps in the right direction. The boss Koloktos for example was just fucking insane in all the right ways. I loved that the Sky Keep dungeon itself was one giant puzzle. I loved that all the items got plenty of use outside of the dungeons they're found in and that you could upgrade them. I love that returning to the same area not only a second time but a third and sometimes a fourth still felt new. I loved the timeshift stone gimmick in Lanayru. They seriously need come up with more crazy ideas like that one. Of course your mileage will vary and I don't expect you to agree with any of that. I'm just saying, making the games more like the old games (more monsters, less puzzles, traditional button controls, whatever else) will not make the games any better than making the games more puzzle-centered. The reason I think SS is a few steps in the right direction is that it doesn't try to emulate any past games. Namely because it didn't try to emulate OoT which is why I think a lot of the 3D Zelda games failed, especially TP. It was a game that actually had something new to bring to the table and that's what I liked about it. In that same regard, that's why I have serious reservations about them trying to make a game more like the older 2D games. Part of the reason why games like LoZ were successful was before that, there weren't many games like them. They shouldn't focus on trying to recreate what they've done in the past. Instead they should take the same spirit of made those games great and do something new.

One thing I would really like them to change is have less linear world/plot. Have more alternative routes, alternative ways to beat a dungeon, beating dungeons in alternative order, alternative ways the story progresses, alternative ways to beat a boss. Even if everything ultimately ends up with the same result in the end, making the journey itself different for every player would have a significant impact. Heck, if they do taht then the handholding might be more appropriate.

Edited by SOAP, 19 January 2012 - 04:42 AM.

[Raien]

Have you ever played Wii Sports Resort? Most of the swordplay is like that. Not the duel swordplay in Resort - the Speed Slice game. A fruit drops down with an arrow showing you which direction to cut it in, then you slice in that direction (horizontal, vertical or diagonal) to win. That's the swordplay in SS. An enemy holds his sword in a specific direction, you slice the right way (horizontal, vertical or diagonal) to win.

That's a pretty good summation of the gameplay, although I think Skyward Sword is less "speed slice" and more simply just "slice". When I actually tried to be fast, that was when the game messed me up most of the time.

Who the hell even says that?

I'm sorry, not that I think you're lying but I have serious doubts about that one.

I've only seen it very occasionally (the last time was on Kotaku) but I have seen it.

In any case I think we've both can agree that the new games are lacking in something but we're going to fundamentally disagree on what that is because we both came into the series at different times. You seem to come from the older generation that grew up with the original LoZ and ALttP. I came later with games like OoT and MM.

Actually, my first games were Link's Awakening and Ocarina of Time. I didn't play the proper Classic Zelda games until they were re-released on GBA and Gamecube.

My perspective comes from the fact that I replay old games A LOT. I never had much spending money so I always had to rely on my old games. But as I replayed my game collection more and more, I found that the games which relied on puzzles and exploration were getting incredibly boring. The novelty of the puzzles long since wore off so it feels like I'm going through the motions now. The games which also relied heavily on exploration, like Super Mario World and Super Mario 64, also lost their appeal when I played them for the thousandth time and realised that there were no secrets left to find, nothing more to discover. And because they are so easy, there is nothing in the gameplay to really engage with. I honestly feel nothing when I play those games now. But the games that retain my interest are the challenging games because I can still engage with the level design and the enemies long after I've discovered all the secrets. The Classic Zelda games, including ALttP, are all challenging enough that I can still enjoy replaying them.

If you asked me what my favourite Zelda game was six years ago, I would have said The Wind Waker.
If you asked me what my favourite Zelda game was three years ago, I would have said both The Wind Waker and ALttP for different reasons.
If you asked me what my favourite Zelda game was today, it's now ALttP.

I did not enjoy the original Legend of Zelda or Zelda II when I first played them but time has since converted me. Time is also the reason that I have no more interest in the novelties of the Modern Zelda games I used to play.

In that same regard, that's why I have serious reservations about them trying to make a game more like the older 2D games. Part of the reason why games like LoZ were successful was before that, there weren't many games like them. They shouldn't focus on trying to recreate what they've done in the past. Instead they should take the same spirit of made those games great and do something new.

Classic Zelda didn't stop being successful when other developers were making their own Zelda clones. Just like 2D Mario didn't stop being successful when everyone had jumped on the platformer bandwagon. Even in 2009, NSMBWii was successful enough to overturn Nintendo's predictions for the Wii.

And for an example of originality not doing a damn thing for a game's sales, look no further than Okami. That game was very original, far more original than most Modern Zelda games. But it still bombed because players aren't interested in "original". They want GOOD. 2D Mario and Classic Zelda were continuously successful because they were GOOD. Modern Zelda and Okami are failing because they are not good.

[SOAP]

I've only seen it very occasionally (the last time was on Kotaku) but I have seen it.

Then it's so rare of an opinion that it doesn't prove anything. I could cite some random forum poster or you tube commenter saying Zelda should have uzi's, hookers, blood, and drab brown environments but it would only be a moot point.

And for an example of originality not doing a damn thing for a game's sales, look no further than Okami. That game was very original, far more original than most Modern Zelda games. But it still bombed because players aren't interested in "original". They want GOOD. 2D Mario and Classic Zelda were continuously successful because they were GOOD. Modern Zelda and Okami are failing because they are not good.

Games should strive more than just being GOOD. Any artistic form of media should strive to be more than GOOD. Okami did poor in sales but left a legacy, which is hard to do for modern games. The classic Zelda games left a legacy too, but not because they were simply good but because they did something new that changed the way games were made/played. Not everything has to boil down to sales. If that were the case, then all media including comics, movies, and TV shows, as well video games should all stick with what works. No body takes any chances. No body brings anything new to the table. And everything just becomes the same bland mediocre same-old, same-old. Because it's what sells. I hate to live in such a world where that was the only thing that mattered.

[Raien]

Then it's so rare of an opinion that it doesn't prove anything. I could cite some random forum poster or you tube commenter saying Zelda should have uzi's, hookers, blood, and drab brown environments but it would only be a moot point.

It wasn't meant to prove anything, it was just an observation of something I thought represented the lows to which gaming has sank.

Okami did poor in sales but left a legacy, which is hard to do for modern games.

How do you know that Okami left a legacy? A legacy is not determined by the people who played it upon release but by the people who play it long afterwards. I expect that in fifty years it will be dead and buried along with all the other modern games that nobody cares about. Why? Because barely anyone took an interest when it first came out on a popular platform, barely anyone cared when it got re-released on an even more popular platform and nobody cared when its sequel came out on yet another popular platform. The game in fact killed the studio that made it because it created such disinterest. If the game can't create new players, then where exactly is this legacy supposed to come from?

The classic Zelda games left a legacy too, but not because they were simply good but because they did something new that changed the way games were made/played.

Being original leaves a shallow legacy. The legacy of The Jazz Singer is that it was the first movie to have sound, but nobody watches The Jazz Singer today because it wasn't a good movie. The Wizard of Oz, on the other hand, had nothing really original about it. In fact, it wasn't even successful until long after any aspect of its production could be considered novel or original. But The Wizard of Oz has a powerful legacy because it was GOOD. It creates passion among even viewers growing up in the 21st Century.

If I was a game developer, I wouldn't want people remembering my game just because of some random innovation. That's a poor way to have your game remembered. I would want people fifty years from now to enjoy my game the same way that people do today. I want the 2D Mario/Classic Zelda legacy.

Not everything has to boil down to sales. If that were the case, then all media including comics, movies, and TV shows, as well video games should all stick with what works. No body takes any chances. No body brings anything new to the table. And everything just becomes the same bland mediocre same-old, same-old. Because it's what sells. I hate to live in such a world where that was the only thing that mattered.

You're arguing against something that doesn't exist. "Doing what works" is not the opposite of "doing something new". Successful games do both at the same time. The problem with Modern Zelda and Okami is that they do something new but they don't do what works. That's why they create such disinterest.

Another point that needs to be made is that sales are not just a shallow commercial thing to be scorned. Long-term sales are in fact the best indicator of the passion that people feel for a game. If you want to know how much passion a game can create, look at how long it lasts in the sales charts. I know that Skyward Sword didn't create much passion because I watched it fall off the charts during the holiday season. The existing Zelda fans bought the game at launch but the game could not create new Zelda fans all on its own to spread the word and keep sales up. And that's how I know Skyward Sword will leave no real legacy.

Edited by Raien, 19 January 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[SOAP]

Welp! I had a whole long-ass response planned but then my internet got disconnected which is good because now I see how wrong I was about your argument. You're not arguing for Zelda to stay the same as the old games so much as you're arguing for games that are more timeless and can easily be enjoyed many years after their initial release (possibly due to them relying on basic human nature rather than forced novel ways of thinking). I was arguing that the old games were successful at their releases because they introduced a new genre of gaming. Both can be technically true.

That said, I wouldn't mind something along the lines of New Super Mario Bros Wii for Zelda, maybe something akin to ALttP. I always thought the Four Sword games were just that but they weren't that successful, possibly due to whole needing a friend with GBA and a copy of the game to make it work. I wouldn't want them to limit themselves to just what worked in the past though. Perfect what works if they must, but they should still keep looking to introduce new ideas, which will always be a hit a miss type thing. But I think the hits are worth the misses if it gives us something new about Zelda to enjoy.

Edited by SOAP, 23 January 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[Fin]

i tend to side with raien's arguments on this (well, i guess we can take that as read now ), but i agree (hell, i think we all can) that we need to see new ideas as well. i just feel like the last ten years or so of the series the new ideas have come across more like non sequiturs, when what i want is new ideas that feel like a natural build off of the old stuff.

[Raien]

Welp! I had a whole long-ass response planned but then my internet got disconnected which is good because now I see how wrong I was about your argument. You're not arguing for Zelda to stay the same as the old games so much as you're arguing for games that are more timeless and can easily be enjoyed many years after their initial release (possibly due to them relying on basic human nature rather than forced novel ways of thinking). I was arguing that the old games were successful at their releases because they introduced a new genre of gaming. Both can be technically true.

Exactly. The Classic Zelda gameplay is a strong, durable foundation for building new worlds. As long as Nintendo keeps to the foundation, they can build increasingly larger, deeper worlds with each new installment and they will all have the same timeless qualities. A Link to the Past is the perfect example of this in action. It was a new world to explore, designed to be bigger and better than the original Legend of Zelda, and it paid off because it stayed true to the original timeless gameplay foundation. Even younger gamers can play and enjoy ALttP, despite the fact that lots of other games now have much larger, deeper overworlds. Ocarina of Time was also popular on the N64 because it had a larger 3D overworld but because it does not stay faithful to the timeless gameplay foundation, it won't date as well as ALttP. Younger gamers won't be impressed by the overworld and the Aonuma-developed dungeon puzzles will rot like 13-year old food.

The successor to ALttP, and by extension the Classic Zelda foundation, should be a much bigger and better version of ALttP. It needs new lands that you can explore freely and without restriction, new cultures that you can engage with on your quest and new kinds of items to give you power. I think it would be cool to see some transformation magic, which could turn Link into a dragon or something. Not for the purpose of solving puzzles as Aonuma would do, but for kicking ass against enemies in the dungeons.

That said, I wouldn't mind something along the lines of New Super Mario Bros Wii for Zelda, maybe something akin to ALttP. I always thought the Four Sword games were just that but they weren't that successful, possibly due to whole needing a friend with GBA and a copy of the game to make it work. I wouldn't want them to limit themselves to just what worked in the past though. Perfect what works if they must, but they should still keep looking to introduce new ideas, which will always be a hit a miss type thing. But I think the hits are worth the misses if it gives us something new about Zelda to enjoy.

Four Swords had three big problems working against it:
-Inaccessibile hardware
-No open world exploration
-An overabundance of puzzles

But it got one thing right; local multiplayer. Any game that has arcade-style gameplay (i.e. gameplay that someone can play in an arcade) should now have local multiplayer as standard. There's no reason not to include it with today's hardware. 2D Zelda has arcade-style gameplay so it should have local multiplayer as standard.

Edited by Raien, 23 January 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[Sir Turtlelot]

So completely ignoring the above argument, I'll give my impressions of SS since I finally finished it, damn school causing this game to take forever...

Anyways, I felt that storywise, SS is one of, if not the best Zelda game. It really captured me, and even though I was only able to play a bit of the game every so often for a few months, every time I sat down to play, it simply recaptured me all over again. I would also consider this to be tied with MM for the most challenging 3D Zelda game, even if a good portion of the challenge was the length and the controls.

My only real complaint about the game was the controls, they were somewhat annoying, especially when I'm screaming at my TV "STAB THAT MOTHER F***ER, GODAMMIT!" For some reason the basic stab was the hardest sword attack for me to do during battle.


Also:

Spoiler

Two comments I really wanted to make, but should be in spoilers.

1. I was legitimately shocked when Demise moved out of the way of the finishing blow, not only once, but twice. I really had my hopes up that, that godforsaken battle was over.

2. Before even starting the game, I joked that SS would pull an Actraiser 2 with the Skyloft. For those of you unfamiliar with Actraiser 2, your character lives in a floating palace and at the end of the game, he has to crash it into the final boss's lair in order to get in, effectively killing all of your little angel guys in the palace. When part of the Skyloft broke off and started hurdling towards the ground, I was amazed that my joke had actually partially come true.

[TheAvengerLever]

This game nearly got everything right. There were many sidequests, the world was interesting to explore, there was a sense of satisfaction helping the people of Skyloft...


But there are three gripes about the game that have been on my mind lately.

1. It didn't seem like the people of Skyloft were really aware of what was going on below the clouds. Yeah, sure, at the beginning of the game there wasn't a whole lot going on up above to make them sit up and notice, but it seems that throughout the entire game these side characters are completely oblivious to what is going on. Having recently replayed Ocarina of Time on the 3DS (a version I'm now convinced is slightly better than the original) I couldn't help but think about the comparisons of the stories in each game. When you become an Adult and step out into Hyrule and see the damage that Ganon has done to HCT and Lon Lon Ranch and all these locations, you feel compelled to step forward and do something about it. Hearing the NPCs talk about the things they've lost and how the seven years period has changed their lives it really helps to both suck you in further to OoT's world-building and make you stoked about delivering Ganon some return blows AND helping out the citizens of Hyrule. In Skyward Sword, you get that sense with Beautreaux (or however you spell his name) but nothing really interesting happens with anyone else besides them dropping shit below the clouds.

2. Fi, that doesn't really warrant an explanation, the internet says enough on this subject. I don't mind characters like Fi. People complained about how annoying Navi was but I never really found her all that bad.

3. I hear a lot of complaints about exploration in this game, but for the most part this is exactly the kind of exploration I want in a 3D Zelda game (well, more of a combination of Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword, really). I remember having loads of fun exploring the areas that were given, and I remember having even more fun exploring the new places that you could go that helped make returning to those old areas fresh. But for goodness sake, going back a third time seemed unecessary and tedious, considering they really didn't offer anything new locations-wise (except for the yellow dragon's area in Lanayru) I think I may have had a better time with going back to Eldin and Faron had their respective quests been siphoned off to yet another area, and made optional to complete said quests earlier in the game. I make the comparison of Eldin's stealth mission to exploring the Thieves Hideout in Ocarina of Time. Yes, it was pretty necessary to gain access to the desert to finish the Spirit Temple, but you could have done it long before you had to even begin with the Spirit Temple stuff. As it is in the game, Eldin's stealth mission seems to me to just be a way to make such a simple quest into one of tedium. I did enjoy the stealthy elements, though.

And what the hell, that Water Dragon is extremely irresponsible with her god powers. Flooding and possibly damaging an ecosystem because she didn't like a couple of monsters there? Just give Link the damn song and he'll go kill their boss and they'll leave. Perhaps she could've asked Link to kill the monsters and then defeat the Bokoblin camp, causing him to go to Eldin to where their main encampment is and stealthily taking them out (or their leader, or whatever). Then the Fire Dragon could have his own quest besides "Yeah, I sneezed and the volcano erupted, causing you extremely large amounts of trouble. Whoops, here's a song."

[Crimson Lego]

Played this weekend for about 2 hours, up to right before the Skyview Temple.

So far, I'd have to say I enjoy the game a lot, least of all the 1:1 motion. When I started fighting, it was definitely a throw-off as compared to other games (eg. the Bokoblins actually blocked my swings rather than in TP where they all died with one hit). Flying the Loftwing was also challenging at first, but once I figured out how to go straight without the 3 dash thingies, it got easier. Shield gauges, though while realistic (I suppose), aren't my favourite, so I'm pretty much just leaving it aside until I really need it for a boss fight or something.

Overall, SS is a pretty good game so far. Hard to say at this point how it compares to TP or OoT for me, but I'll see later on.