People who say Zelda games are all the same

Malkavian

I don't remember seeing this argument until Twilight Princess came around, which I suppose isn't incidental since that had the least to add to the franchise of any Zelda game.

Honestly, this statement completely mystifies me. I think it makes no logical sense.

Even so, I can't see how someone can look at gaming history and not understand how Ocarina shook the world from its step up from 2-D. Even not looking at gaming history I don't think you can say reasonably say Windwaker and Oot and Majora's Mask are the same game. They all rely are different core concepts and continual use of new ideas to drive each of their games.

Okay yeah, each game has the going into dungeons, getting a new item, and fighting a monster with that item but by that logic Temple of Doom is the same movie as Raiders of The Lost Ark because they both involve ancient duntgeons, elaborate action pieces, and whips.

MadassAlex

Okay
yeah, each game has the going into dungeons, getting a new item, and
fighting a monster with that item but by that logic Temple of Doom is
the same movie as Raiders of The Lost Ark because they both involve
ancient duntgeons, elaborate action pieces, and whips.

---

Actually, there's a difference in context. Zelda titles, being video games, have the audience participation element. A movie doesn't have that, so what constitutes "the same" occupies different ground. Given that all 3D Zelda games use a similar set of items with small variance each game and follow the same pattern, it means that the audience participation element has a strong series of repeated sequences across games.

The same could be said of many series, perhaps to an even greater degree. All that separates the Modern Warfare games is the plot and set pieces, with most of the games being dedicated to (admittedly good) cover shooting.

I'd say Zelda games are the same in the same way Iron Maiden songs are the same. All the individual elements can be counted upon to follow one of a handful of expected paths, but the results can vary a little or a lot.

Shoving off from my awkward and audience-specific comparison, though, it's generally the sidelined Zelda titles that are the most different from the standards we've come to expect. The jewel of all these is probably Majora's Mask, which was an incredible game in the same way Dark Souls is -- it's punishing on a variety of levels, and there's no true safety or security for the player. Your victories are hard won and feel like accomplishments.

Malkavian

>
Given that all 3D Zelda games use a similar set of items with small variance each game and follow the same pattern, it means that the audience participation element has a strong series of repeated sequences across games. 

I was going for a specifically not-vidya example but okay. I like your Iron Maiden example. But another example is pretty much every 2D Castlevania game after Super Castlevani, all the 2-D Sonic Games, any fighting game every created (which only brings in new characters and solves balance issues) and especially the modern warfare syndrome.

MillerCross

I'd say that the games still hold a few similarities between each other, but most of the similarities are hardly franchise-spanning (Like Wind Waker/Ocarina of Time's use of a magical instrument or the A link to the Past/Ocarina of Time ability of jumping in between two very different worlds)

Malkavian

On a similar note, I' m over half-a-decade late but people who thought TP would be better than Windwaker because it looked darker bugged me. Because Zelda has been defined by a dark atmosphere for the almost two-decades at the time, right?

Fuck, when TP came out it wasn't even that dark.

MillerCross

Part of the reason was simply that Ocarina of Time was going in an exciting new direction with the series. It wasn't just "Stop Ganon before he comes to full power" anymore. It was "Ganon has won. Time for round 2. Now go up to that tower and earn your title"

Granted, A link to the Past sort of did that, but it did it with less innovative gameplay. 

Not saying that WW is bad. Just that when you want a sequel to something, it's because you want more of the aspects that you liked about that something, not because you wanted something different.

For further reference: Metal Gear Solid 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean.

Malkavian

I'd say that Windwaker went in a new direction as well. The fight became personal for Link because Aryll was involved. Zelda-Tetra (oh come on this isn't a spoiler) took a more primary role in helping Link. Ganon became more of a character and somewhat tragic, and the exploration aspect was heavily expanded.

No, I think a lot of people didn't like WW because of the cell-shaded graphics.

MadassAlex

Metal Gear Solid 2 was brilliant, though. It isn't even written as badly as the other entries, plus it was well before its time concerning its reflections on gaming as a past-time and as an expanding element of culture. That said, it was also my introduction to the series.

I liked the "darker" art style of TP from a purely aesthetic perspective. I don't really care how dark or bright or whatever Zelda games are, but I preferred the TP style simply because it appealed to my tastes. On the other hand, I had no great objection to the WW style artwork and it was a pretty great game anyway.

Then again, I have my whole "LoZ is another world's Arthurian mythology/Nibelunglied" thing.

MillerCross

nononono, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that they liked Ocarina of Time because it was innovative. I'm saying they liked Ocarina Of Time because of where it went and because it was innovative. Going in another direction was bound to cause some degree of doubt.

Yes, the new art design aspect of it was rather significant, but it was mostly an extension of the above (Wind Waker wasn't going for this attempt at realistic proportions that Ocarina was going for and blah blah blah)

Metal Gear Solid 2 was brilliant, though. It isn't even written as badly as the other entries, plus it was well before its time concerning its reflections on gaming as a past-time and as an expanding element of culture. That said, it was also my introduction to the series. 

It definetly was, but the thing is, at the time of MGS release and MGS2 announcement, people mostly wanted a new MGS game because of Snake. The moment you take Snake away from the equation, people start reconsidering their taste for the sequel because that's what they wanted out of a sequel. 

Granted, the way Kojima went about it most certainly helps.

And I'd say that MGS2 makes a bad job out of being a MGS 1 simulation in terms of capturing the charm said game has. That, and apart from MGS4, I can't think of any game that was worse in the series than that.

Not saying that MGS2 is bad, of course. It is pretty amazing. But I think that for all its intentions as metacommentary, it fails at the thing that makes MGS so good and it's that mix of charm, self awareness, drama and humor that MGS 1 and 3 do so well.

Malkavian

^^I just think WW was a much better game, and part of that was definitely in that it led to aesthetic quality with the cartoonish aspects. You understood what each character was, even Link, from the first point. Aryll was your precious little moe sister that followed you with an 'oniiii-chan!' and you could tell that from just looking at her. 

TP's art style reflected the theme of dark/light the game had but suffered in the department of helping the characters, which there were more of them with less screen time and as such they felt more artificial and stereotypical. 

Midna was awesome though.

^But most of the complaints (the ones I heard anyways, opinion myopia blah blah) were about how it was too kiddy and not serious enough and Link being a little kid and other things that totally weren't present in other Zelda games.

MillerCross

^But most of the complaints (the ones I heard anyways, opinion myopia blah blah) were about how it was too kiddy and not serious enough and Link being a little kid and other things that totally weren't present in other Zelda games.

Well, like I said, they are an extension of the main criticism that Waker got. Which was that it was not Ocarina itself nor a "true" Ocarina sequel. (True defined here as a sequel that expands on the things that Ocarina did, thematically speaking. Which is a lame definition and which is why you get quotemarks)

Malkavian

Man I wish I had the /v/ post with Shigeru Miyamoto complaining about fan reactions to Zelda...

MadassAlex

I think if darkness is to be done in Zelda, it can't be for shits and giggles. Majora's Mask is probably the best example of a dark Zelda game and I recall it getting some very negative reactions upon immediate release. Despite that, it was a very clever and effective tonal shift away from even the darkness of OoT, and had a combination of child appeal and horror that more quickly reminds me of Miyazaki than anything else.

MillerCross

I thought Majora's Mask drew hate because of its groundhog's day plot?

Malkavian

That is true, but I found that to be hating a cake for not being a cookie.

MillerCross

nah, it's more like hating a cherry pie for not being the huckleberry pie you asked for, really. 

Malkavian

My point is that it was hate at the game for being what it was and not how well it did it. 

MillerCross

And my point was simply that sometimes you don't want something good. You want something specific. Which is still stupid, as it means you don't get to try good new things and just stay with what you know to be good.

Bee

I didn't like the art style in Twilight Princess because it was dark, I liked it because it was naturalistic and they used it to adapt the setting appropriately.  Combat got a little more pragmatic.  Gadgets got a little more "barely-finished product of a period-appropriate crazed alchemist and you might be a nutcase for even carrying it" instead of "colorful thing goes BOINK and stuff happens!" (ball and chain aside -- that was kind of a left-fielder).  Link was suddenly wearing honest-to-God believable armor, if a very lightweight sort.  It was darker, but more than that, it was an attempt to turn the kid in a funny green suit into an actual dude you could almost believe would walk out of a backwoods tavern and go riding off into no-man's land to commence asskicking.

Similarly, I enjoyed Wind Waker for taking its cartoonishness and running with it appropriately.  It did a lot of flourishes in the art style that simply wouldn't have fit thematically with Twilight Princess, or even OoT/MM.  They pushed exaggerated expressiveness in the lighter parts, and reined it in a bit in the more dramatic moments.  They gave Link a few flashes of an actual personality and let things get visibly personal for him, which was pretty much unheard of up till then.  Hell, the only thing I had against Wind Waker was that it was too short and had that stupid scavenger hunt filler at the end.

One thing I would like to see in future Zelda games is a Hard mode.  WW and TP felt even easier than they were mostly because Majora's Mask wasn't afraid to show some teeth.  I understand and completely respect making the game accessible to casual gamers -- awesome!  I just wish they'd take another pass on the AI to make things a bit more intense for those inclined to take a challenge.

ClockworkUniverse

the only thing I had against Wind Waker was that it was too short

Yeah, I'd really like to play a version with the three dungons they cut included.

One thing I would like to see in future Zelda games is a Hard mode

Er...didn't they do this in SS and OOT3D?

Bee

Haven't gotten around to Skyward Sword -- if they did, huzzah.  Does it actually make the game harder, or does everything just take twice as long to kill and do a touch more damage?

Didn't feel like shelling out for a second minor tuneup of Ocarina of Time

ClockworkUniverse

I haven't played it, because you have to actually beat the game to unlock it, sadly.

But apparently, everything does triple damage to you, and hearts become really hard to come by.

MadassAlex

On armour:

One thing I like about Zelda games, which the armour brings to the fore, is that they take place in something along the lines of a Central European "heroic age" in something that resembles an idealised and fantastic post-Roman period. Swords are rare -- just having one is notable in itself, and armour is even rarer. While the setting has no lack of anachronisms, there's the general feeling that weapons and armour are things of value and rarity. Link has begun to wear a maille shirt as of late, which is about the heaviest armour a Germanic tribesman, even a very powerful, lordly one, is likely to have barring a helmet.

What this means is that Link becomes a hero who resembles a chivalric knight under the economic and technological restrictions of a heroic age warrior. It expresses the general attitude towards combat -- armour is a failsafe for the wealthy, proven or chosen. Swords and maille were very kingly gifts and held in high honour. To a Germanic tribesman, the image of a maille-shirted warrior with sword and shield is what the plate-armoured knight with sword and lance is to us. Link is a hero who meets the technical standards of a Germanic tribal hero and the moral standards of a late medieval one.

The sword, shield and maille combination, with anachronism in the setting, is a very clever combination.

Bee

^^ Ugh...that's the sort of thing I was afraid of.  I already do three-heart challenges on this stuff

I was hoping for like, tightening up timing on enemy patterns, adding a couple extra attacks, or shifting level geometry.  Something to actually step up the rhythm of the game instead of just making you be a bit more careful doing exactly what you were already doing.

Malkavian

I don't know much about historical armor and whatnot unfortunately but I've yet to see it played in a game where the protagonist has it that isn't turned into a numbers game. Zelda does a good job of using it on enemies but by making a part of problem solving. I think bringing armor into the issue, from a Doylist perspective (hurr hurr), cheapens what Link does. It's just a dude, his toys, his brain, and the fairy that won't shut up. The shield is an extension of that, but armor artificially powers an avatar up which Zelda shouldn't do outside of the hearts, which you have to earn.

MadassAlex

I wouldn't want the armour to have any specific function. It's just a neato little thing. And well expressive of the kind of fighter Link is supposed to be.

Were one to make a game where different armours have different functions, though, it would require both weapons and armour to be physical in-game objects. The role of maille is not to take strikes head-on, but to work in conjunction with voids; as one steps aside or back, the strike might still connect, but only as a glancing blow, and will fail to pierce or cut.

Different armours will respond differently to different attacks. In the case of maille, it would use a linear function to determine whether it's pierced or not. Furthermore, it would reduce damage to zero for glancing blows. It's best used by agile warriors who would seek to dodge incoming attacks anyway. Axes could pierce with cutting, whereas swords and spears could pierce with thrusting. Sword cut damage would be nulled, but would remain capable of stunning a mailled adversary for a follow-up attack.

nohaynicklibre

I thought Majora's Mask drew hate because of its groundhog's day plot?

Late to this,but when it was released MM go backlash mainly because it wasn't OoT

MillerCross

Well, duh, that's what I said. 

MrW

There's also this idea that Zelda fans are slavish supporters who will not acknowledge any of the games's flaws, when some of the biggest arguments in the fanbase are all based around said flaws.