Seems all old school dev's will all be retired soon. :(

[PedroMD]

What a load of bullshit. As if Zelda's dungeons consist entirely of single room puzzles... like Alundra - as opposed to overarching requirements that require broader thinking and plenty of backtracking to work out. Someone hasn't played either of the 64 games, that's for sure. And please stop talking about Spirit Tracks like it's anything marginally above Phantom Hourglass. The DS games are trite and pretty mediocre Zelda-by-numbers with a little boat and a little train; which is how the discussion started: the drop-off of the series post Majora.

Hilarity ensues in this thread. First Alundra and Beyond Oasis are better than a LttP (stop the presses, call the mayor, shout it from the rooftops, the world needs correcting!) now it's Zelda has rubbish dungeons.

Carry on chaps. Your words are immortalised on this forum, no turning back now.

You are so hell-bent in pursuing conflict you are reading stuff that was never written. "Please stop talking", as if I had written a whole dissertation. PH is a mediocre game and ST is repeated design, but credit where is due: the Tower of Spirits WAS done wonderfully right.
You say there was a drop of quality post MM, and I don't see how what I said contradicts this. The dungeon designs since then have been mostly boring single-room-challenge affairs, and at this point the number of games released since MM amount to almost half the series. So pardon me for not point the obvious point that there are good games in the series for the sake of brevity.

[Ganelon]

Hilarity ensues in this thread. First Alundra and Beyond Oasis are better than a LttP (stop the presses, call the mayor, shout it from the rooftops, the world needs correcting!) now it's Zelda has rubbish dungeons.

Carry on chaps. Your words are immortalised on this forum, no turning back now.

Zelda actually doesn't have a sterling reputation amongst the western RPG crowd as it does the general gaming population. The opinions we're expressing are fairly common amongst the online RPG community. It's hard to tell how much of that is simply backlash from years of "Zelda is an RPG" topics though (akin to the anti-Final Fantasy VII backlash). If anyone searches hard enough, you can probably find late 90s RPG forum posts from me about not understanding why Ocarina of Time was receiving such acclaim.

I could always relate to Zelda II the most in the series (and in general prefer sidescrolling ARPGs over top-down ones) but it's a bit too monotonous. If the dungeons were cut in half, then it'd probably be more action-packed a la Cadash. I think Nintendo could do really well with a liberal remake or spiritual successor of Zelda II.

As for tomorrow's generation, I'm still looking forward to Forza Motorsport 5 and Killer Instinct on Xbox One. I'm still waiting for the racing game where I can't distinguish from a replay whether I'm seeing real life or CG. Forza 5 probably won't be that game but racing pseudo-sims are one of the few genres that drastically improve with better hardware.

[Ed Oscuro]

If the dungeons were cut in half, then it'd probably be more action-packed a la Cadash. I think Nintendo could do really well with a liberal remake or spiritual successor of Zelda II.

But Nintendo instead chooses to pigeonhole all their franchises, reserving experiments for characters living on the fringes of the generic Mushroom Kingdom. It's probably just as well for the sake of the main franchises, since I think that at least until recently many of their experiments haven't gone well. For every success like Kirby, there's probably a Weegee's Mansion lurking out there. Notice also how many successful experiments aren't really experiments and feature Mario prominently: Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Kart, Super Mario RPG, maybe some of the Yoshi's games.

Switching to ex-Nintendo - is Killer Instinct still fated to be that franchise where everybody looks back on each outing after 10 years with all the fondness one feels for a hangover? Does anybody think the games are particularly special?

[Neathyr]

Never really saw the appeal of Zelda, and this is coming from someone who was a pretty much a Nintendo fanboy until midway through the PSOne/SS/N64 generation. And most importantly, I fail to understand the need of some people on the internet to make it sound as if it was the ultimate manifestation of game design.
The combat is mediocre at best, Link never managed to make me feel like a badass at all (something really important for me when I play action or action/adventure hybrids), the stupid focus on solving 9 years old-level puzzles is tiresome and breaks the pacing, its lore is just uninteresting...
With Gothic 2 (and 3 to some extent), Dark Souls and even Divinity II, there's no reason for me to go back to that series, since they all did what Zelda could only hope to achieve.

However, I do enjoy the original LoZ, but that's probably because it borrows the open-ended design found in Ultima coupled with arcade gameplay.
Thing is, ALttP was severely watered down compared to the original. As far as difficulty goes, it just wasn't on the same level as the first game: instead of the iconic "Here, take your sword, now feel free to explore", you now have to run through a dungeon for like 30 minutes, most of the secrets are clearly visible, hurting the exploration aspect, and the dungeon progression was made to be more linear. And the pattern continued until it became the joke the franchise has become since Wind Waker, moving even further from its roots.

--------

As for this upcoming generation, I think I reached the point where I lost all hope for any new consoles.
The departure of skill-based games and advent of those "pseudo-cinematic experiences", with an overabundance of QTEs taking AWAY the control from me, RPG-lite elements poisoning action games that reward time invested rather than pure skill, regenerating health, some beloved genres dying left and right, some beloved genres can now only live through unreliable download-only services, shoehorned multiplayer experiences in almost every game released under the sun that are bound to die within a few months (if not weeks) after release, the slow death of single-player games, titles designed/balanced around broken and greedy microtransactions... I just don't care anymore. The industry can take those insane budgets and "AAA or bust" mentality and go fuck itself for all I care.

There's still a tremendous amount of shmups available that one could only hope to finish during a lifetime, and I don't mind if I can only play the good fighting games released so far until the end of time.
Well designed FPS titles with a great single-player campaign are dead and gone. Metroid is a dead horse, Ninja Gaiden is all fucked up, Fire Emblem sold out. Capcom can barely make a game worth buying nowadays. Deep and challenging SRPG series/titles are either not being released anymore or JP exclusive. Bomberman died a sad death without reaching its full potential. Clever and pure stealth games are M.I.A.. Platinum may not make it if their games keep selling poorly. And the list goes on. The dark age has finally arrived.
I just wanted to see more quality character action games (God Hand, Ninja Gaiden, Shinobi, MG Rising), and a few more TPS with combat mechanics on par with Vanquish and Resident Evil but... yeah.

In the end, I'm perfectly happy for Wii and X360 to be my last consoles. If there's still some hope left for games with an arcade heritage, then hopefully they all get a PC release, since consoles are now entering irrelevance territory.

[trap15]

Never really saw the appeal of Zelda, and this is coming from someone who was a pretty much a Nintendo fanboy until midway through the PSOne/SS/N64 generation. And most importantly, I fail to understand the need of some people on the internet to make it sound as if it was the ultimate manifestation of game design.
The combat is mediocre at best, Link never managed to make me feel like a badass at all (something really important for me when I play action or action/adventure hybrids), the stupid focus on solving 9 years old-level puzzles is tiresome and breaks the pacing, its lore is just uninteresting...

[Ed Oscuro]

I didn't want to spam but I felt the same way. Great summary of some of the ways the series has failed on its promise.

Looking at a post by Edmond over on the Retrogaming Roundtable...

Put me squarely on the "Hate" side. Majora's Mask was actually the first nail in the coffin for the Zelda series for me (and then later the Oracle games convinced me Zelda was dead).

Don't get me wrong... at first Majora's Mask seemed like a good game with an interesting premise, but then I learned about the Three Days gimmick. Oh god, the three days gimmick. A game where you constantly have to re-do the things you've already done. Great design, Nintendo.

If they had only reworked that gimmick so it was less miserable, then I would've enjoyed the game. But that one thing made me hate the game.

Why do I get the feeling we've swapped places a bit? I ought to go back and re-read my posts from our previous discussion. Stuff like the Beyond Oasis / LttP comparison are making me realize I was discontented with a few things.

But now for a really great post I have to share with you:

This one of the few times where the fans let a AAA company down.

Cynics looked at Majora's Mask, and saw only the reused models and limited dungeon set. Many quit the game, complaining that the pressure of the 3 day cycle prevented them from exploring long enough to learn how to slow down the clock...

This isn't a game you can enjoy if you simply want to kill things until the credits roll. There are thousands of games that already exist for that audience.

What Majora's Mask is, is something much rarer - this is the game Shenmue wanted to be, despite having nowhere near the budget. Every NPC in this small town has their own story to tell. It's alive in ways few other stories told in any medium are ever allowed to be...

And it's still the only console game I've ever played where racism is not only acknowledged, but is a central gameplay mechanic. So too are emptiness, longing, and shame...

And they manage to tell all of this from a child's perspective, as if it were all a child's dream.

What really drove the stakes home for me wasn't the end of the world when I failed. It was a lie about the end of the world. On the very last night, as everyone ran away to the countryside in the hopes they might survive the destruction of Clocktown, one woman, knowing they were all about to die anyways, told one excited little girl that she was finally big enough to have an adult drink*, and that when she woke the next morning, everyone would celebrate.

The little girl went to sleep, happier than she had ever been...

*In the early to mid 90's, America frequently censored any alcoholic references. In one of the most sarcastic subversions of a videogame trope ever made, once the milk leaves the cows in Majora's, everyone in the entire game just shamelessly acts like it's alcohol. You'll run fresh Southern mooshine down dirt roads, shooting arrows at greedy rednecks all the way, and deliver it to an adults only club, where the lonely adults inside just want to drink their pain away in peace. It's just one of the many ways they get away with murder - besides all the times they actually murder people, of course.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I just happen to be stuck in one of the Oracle of Ages dungeons (earlier on I got stuck in one of the overworld areas and resorted to gamefaqs). I don't find the puzzles too easy at all*). The combat and exploration are faster-paced than I expected after OoT and Wind Waker. The Tree is... unusual. Then you get to jump when you press a button (not for the first time in the series, but neither do I see Zelda II namedropped too often).
*)Execution can be a tad tricky too.

P.S. Didn't really play Majora's Mask, but does it bear any spiritual resemblance to Pandora's Tower? Asking people who played both more than I have.

[Skykid]

For the sake of posterity, I can't really allow a thread of "we <3 hit-points" wankery to be so easily dismissed. Let's get slapping.

You are so hell-bent in pursuing conflict you are reading stuff that was never written. "Please stop talking", as if I had written a whole dissertation.

Actually, you wrote an overarching statement that demanded no game in particular, and thus the entire series, required "actual puzzles" as if the dungeon format in its entirety was somehow devoid of any puzzle element. You also suggested that the entire dungeon layout was built around single rooms that all require a recurring simple method to defeat, such as "lighting all the torches in a room" or "Use item A in switch A", which is total nonsense. Such simple puzzles exist, but the fabric of each and every dungeon is a whole, usually requiring an original device - or requiring one to be obtained within - and then dissecting the dungeon using newfound knowledge, usually across several floors. For the sake of argument we'll deduct the weaker DS games from consideration in this, since they really spent a lot of time flogging old ideas.

Never really saw the appeal of Zelda, and this is coming from someone who was a pretty much a Nintendo fanboy until midway through the PSOne/SS/N64 generation. And most importantly, I fail to understand the need of some people on the internet to make it sound as if it was the ultimate manifestation of game design.

Yet it is the ultimate manifestation of a type of game design. Why should anyone care if you can't see it?

The combat is mediocre at best. Link never managed to make me feel like a badass at all

Although I enjoy Ocarina's combat system, I have to ask whether or not you're a bit daft? Does Zelda really strike you as a combat-oriented game?

With Gothic 2 (and 3 to some extent), Dark Souls and even Divinity II, there's no reason for me to go back to that series, since they all did what Zelda could only hope to achieve.

Thanks for more claptrap of the highest order. Comparisons of wildly different types of genres always helps spruce up good topical conversation. Everyone enjoys listening to Willy Wonkas wax-lyrical about how Zelda isn't like Dark Souls.

I hope Christ saves your critical ability from the acid bath you've been giving it.

Zelda actually doesn't have a sterling reputation amongst the western RPG crowd as it does the general gaming population. The opinions we're expressing are fairly common amongst the online RPG community.

And I should hope not!
Why would a series that manages to completely avoid repeating classic done-to-death JRPG and traditional join-the-dots guff, full of edging around maps, irritating random battles and an onus on making those widdle numbers in the HUD really, really strong even be considered canon by the "Western RPG community"?
Personally I don't even consider the Zelda games to be cut from the same cloth as JARPG's, it's just too different in makeup. If anything Zelda is an arcade game applied to an adventure-based mould: completely fat free.
The challenge and joy is in its dungeons and endless reward system, gifting the player with abilities that then require thoughtful application in the world around them. Quite different to learning a new spell and pressing a button and keeping an eye on your MP, no?

Or going to a shop and buying stuff with the money in the dungeon you just ground out so you are strong enough in the next.
Or using a potion to restore your MP, use your spell, use a potion to restore your MP, use your spell, use a potion to restore your MP, use your spell, use a potion to restore your MP, use your spell. Real action!

Zelda's mastery is in its accessibility and iron strength of production. So many goombas think making something like Zelda is easy because anyone can play it - fallacy of the highest, bash-your-head-in-with-a-metal-bat order. On the contrary, bullets were sweated for what was achieved in the likes of Ocarina. I'm sure people died in the process of making it work seamlessly. The magic is you can't see the cracks, so dimwitted videogaming goof-offs go running their mouths about the 'lack of complexity' and whatnot, when that's the hardest thing to achieve.

1 through 6, discounting 2, are moulded to completeness. No-loose ends - much like arcade games - but the structuring is the stuff dreams are made of: a structuring where the story is told by the unfolding events in the world around you, that you trigger, in-real time, and based on your progression; as opposed to yards of exposition, elongated cutscenes, and a shit-ton of padding that adds half a novel where the game should be.

So please, this is a game for the general gaming population, and the most successful of its kind. The "western RPG crowd" can go shove a speculum up its ass and see if they can catch their brain on its way out.

I could always relate to Zelda II the most in the series (and in general prefer sidescrolling ARPGs over top-down ones)

Well Ganelon old buddy, like you as I do (and I do) the two points in the above sentence essentially make you completely unqualified to comment on this conversation at all, especially in any kind of critical capacity. I request all your previous comments are struck from the court record.

Put me squarely on the "Hate" side. Majora's Mask was actually the first nail in the coffin for the Zelda series for me (and then later the Oracle games convinced me Zelda was dead).

Don't get me wrong... at first Majora's Mask seemed like a good game with an interesting premise, but then I learned about the Three Days gimmick. Oh god, the three days gimmick. A game where you constantly have to re-do the things you've already done. Great design, Nintendo.

If they had only reworked that gimmick so it was less miserable, then I would've enjoyed the game. But that one thing made me hate the game.

Well, although Edmond's lack of brain industry has been eternally cemented on this forum, in the case of Majora's Mask I always feel sorry for unsuspecting gamers, and therefore can't blame their lack of enthusiasm. I was on the frontline for the release of MM, and remember firsthand the amount of man-children who came back into the shop asking for refunds and credit notes. "I just don't get it" they whined.

Let's face it, it's not like any Zelda title... or any title, anyone's ever played, or Nintendo have achieved before or after. Or ever will again.
It shafts you instantly, throws you into a 3 day cycle of unending doom that seems completely inescapable in the initial hours, and expects the player to understand they're not going to get the purely traditional (but nigh-on perfect) methodology applied to Ocarina.

It's a game where the world is ending and you need to manipulate time to stop it. In the process, you discover a world that starts off seeming one-town big, and becomes a teeming universe of characters each with individual and often interconnecting paths and stories, all of which you have a direct role in rather than observing from afar. You right the wrongs as you choose, since not all side-stories require pursuing and not all Masks require collecting - a first and last for the series - but you can exist within that 3 day cycle at your leisure, and in a most melancholy fashion, bring to light all the events that happen in the last days of Termina's population: threads you had no idea were occurring at the beginning of the game. One of its most incredible, medium-transcending attributes, is that in your role as saviour of the individual, as opposed to saviour of the land, it becomes about emotional attachment. There's one story in-there that brings the player to their knees, metaphorically, as you unravel the secret of two NPC's just as the moon is seconds away from taking their lives - and only you can make the leap back through time. And you do, back to the first day, groundhog day, and there they are again, walking by, happy as can be, while only the player is burdened with the knowledge of their fate.

Majora's Mask is so ambitious it defies belief, and had no choice but to buckle the comprehension of your average human slug. But unlike most ambitious projects, it actually works to the 99th percentile of perfection. They pulled it off. Sounds ciche, but it is more than a videogame: genius impossible to reckoned with. It's the Citizen Kane of videogames, in both achievement and horrible lack of recognition.

[trap15]

Yet it is the ultimate manifestation of a type of game design. Why should anyone care if you can't see it?

So why don't you explain how? We've all been waiting.

Does Zelda really strike you as a combat-oriented game?

Considering it's an ARPG-ish game... somewhat, yes. Not entirely focused on the combat, but it's a significant part of the game. So yes, it's important for the combat to not feel like ass.

[Skykid]

Yet it is the ultimate manifestation of a type of game design. Why should anyone care if you can't see it?

So why don't you explain how? We've all been waiting.

...Because I didn't just do that in the tome above?

Does Zelda really strike you as a combat-oriented game?

Considering it's an ARPG-ish game... somewhat, yes.

Sorry bro, that's just dumb. Combat is totally secondary bar dungeon bosses, who are usually as brilliantly designed as everything else. The rest are little more than odd engagements, mostly take-it-or-leave-it, that can be used to pick up hearts or equipment while travelling from A to B. I'll give you the 2D titles, since little spinny swords aren't particularly nuanced, but for the record if the combat system in the 64 games feels likes ass then it must be the best type of ass there is. Not deep, but terrific fun.

Going against the grain isn't always hardcore boys. Sometimes it's just short-sighted.

[dunpeal2064]

if the combat system in the 64 games feels likes ass then it must be the best type of ass there is. Not deep, but terrific fun.

How can it be the best kind of ass if it isn't deep?

[Sinful]

lol @ Skykids replies to me.

lolol @ Robs reply to Drum about the torches & blocks.


My brother (the Zelda fan) said he misses the first Zelda game's puzzles.

Meanwhile, give me the next iteration of Ys I & II anyday (well, unless it's 3D again).

OH YEAH! Can't believe I forgot this series, since I just got into it just a bit ago. Played the first two on my PSP. Blown away. Now a forever Y's & Falcon fan. ... Yeah, the 3d games just don't hold a candle to the two 2d ones I've played (never even finished part 7). ... Want to play both part 4's. Think that voice translation for the PCE is done now? Oh wait, part 4 SNES is not getting done anytime soon.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Yeah, the 3d games just don't hold a candle to the two 2d ones I've played (never even finished part 7).

And what 3D ones other than 7 have you played? The Oath in Felghana (PC) is of excellence.

[BIL]

Yeah, the 3d games just don't hold a candle to the two 2d ones I've played (never even finished part 7).

Seconding the Felghana recommendation. I've never played Ys 7, but The Oath In Felghana (Ys III remake) is easily as good as Ys I & II Complete. Better, really - it has far more nuanced combat with the same manic pace and some spectacularly hardcore boss battles.

At least it's great on PC, no idea how the PSP version is.

[soprano1]

Sinful: There is a Ys IV remake on the Vita, called Ys: Memories of Celceta. It will be released in NA in November 5th.

BIL: Felghana PSP plays nicely, and has voice acting (mediocre, though) and a bunch of other extras.

[Neathyr]

Never really saw the appeal of Zelda, and this is coming from someone who was a pretty much a Nintendo fanboy until midway through the PSOne/SS/N64 generation. And most importantly, I fail to understand the need of some people on the internet to make it sound as if it was the ultimate manifestation of game design.

Yet it is the ultimate manifestation of a type of game design. Why should anyone care if you can't see it?

To YOU, maybe. And no, I don't give a shit if Failcritic or the majority of so-called "gamers" consider it to be the shining beacon of gaming. The gaming community in general would be a far better place if people started to, you know... respect each other's tastes.
From where I come from, you don't hear this "you don't appreciate it, but most people think it's the best shit available, so your opinion is worthless. You must agree with us!" nonsense. Remember: the consensus agrees that Call of Duty 4's single-player campaign is of high quality. The consensus agrees that Uncharted 2 is a fenomenal title and better than the majority of games from the past. The consensus agrees that Wii Sports is the best game on the planet. The consensus agrees that Metal Gear Solid has the best stealth mechanics on the market. So fuck the consensus.

Although I enjoy Ocarina's combat system, I have to ask whether or not you're a bit daft? Does Zelda really strike you as a combat-oriented game?

Oh, please. Combat in 3D Zelda is the embodiment of lazyness. In 3D Zelda, the enemies can't be hurt until they perform a... telegraphed attack. For some retarded reason, they HAVE to telegraph you a specific position. It's like the enemies are waving a flag saying: "Hey, I'm going to attack you now! Ready your shield and then hit the attack button when I finish my move!". That, and the combat can also turn into a braindead button mashing while you're dealing with the weaker foes. You trigger the Z-aiming and wave your sword like a drunken madmen. It's so anticlimatic and uninspiring, devoid of any semblance of depth.
As for the bolded part and the other bolded part below:

Thanks for more claptrap of the highest order. Comparisons of wildly different types of genres always helps spruce up good topical conversation. Everyone enjoys listening to Willy Wonkas wax-lyrical about how Zelda isn't like Dark Souls.

I hope Christ saves your critical ability from the acid bath you've been giving it.

...So I take it you haven't played either of the NES Zeldas or even Dark Souls for that matter.
When the series first started, they were the epitome of open-ended game design. You could explore wherever you want, whenever you want. You were that free to do almost anything you please. There was no sidekick holding your hand as if you had ADD, you didn't have to deal with a fanfic-level of a story taking away the control from you, the purpose of your then newfound weapons was to help you in combat rather than solve some basic puzzles, the gameplay was semi-fast and VERY arcade-like that demanded some understanding from the player. What I'm trying to say is that they were CRPG/arcade hybrids. Hell, Zelda II even had a level-up system. NoA even marketed the series as a CRPG/arcade game, and I quote: "It has the fast action you'd expect from an arcade hit, along with all the depth and advanced roll playing of personal computer games. The best of both worlds!".

So yes, Dark Souls is a Zelda game made with current-gen technology. Dark Souls is also more similar to Zelda than the Puzzelda/Adventure bullshit Aonuma has turned the franchise into.

I appreciate your concern, but I don't hope Christ saves you from anything.

[Hagane]

Stop making sense already.

[Udderdude]

Shitty OP but amazing follow-up, really enjoying this :3

[Skykid]

Oh fuck yes. I haven't even gotten my knuckles wet yet.

To YOU, maybe. And no, I don't give a shit if Failcritic or the majority of so-called "gamers" consider it to be the shining beacon of gaming. The gaming community in general would be a far better place if people started to, you know... respect each other's tastes.

Oh I respect your tastes, just not your inaccuracies.

From where I come from, you don't hear this "you don't appreciate it, but most people think it's the best shit available, so your opinion is worthless. You must agree with us!" nonsense.

Well no-one ever said that. You're just making a gross-generalisation. We're only talking about one series of games and four games within that series. Are you on the right page now?

Remember: the consensus agrees that Call of Duty 4's single-player campaign is of high quality. The consensus agrees that Uncharted 2 is a fenomenal title and better than the majority of games from the past. The consensus agrees that Wii Sports is the best game on the planet. The consensus agrees that Metal Gear Solid has the best stealth mechanics on the market. So fuck the consensus.

Indeed. I refer you to this choice excerpt from yours truly, in-bold for your "fenomenal" reading comprehension. You can find it on page 2 post 15:

"In the case of LTTP and Ocarina, public opinion is for once completely accurate. Since that's as common an occurrence as a hybrid solar eclipse..."

Oh, please. Combat in 3D Zelda is the embodiment of lazyness. In 3D Zelda, the enemies can't be hurt until they perform a... telegraphed attack. For some retarded reason, they HAVE to telegraph you a specific position. It's like the enemies are waving a flag saying: "Hey, I'm going to attack you now! Ready your shield and then hit the attack button when I finish my move!". That, and the combat can also turn into a braindead button mashing while you're dealing with the weaker foes. You trigger the Z-aiming and wave your sword like a drunken madmen. It's so anticlimatic and uninspiring, devoid of any semblance of depth.

Right. Well you've done a great job there of addressing the part where I said Zelda isn't a combat-oriented game and provides nothing but collectibles if you feel the need to go hunting. So no, it's not deep, but yes, it is practical. I'm waiting - no burning - for you to tell me why it needs to be more? It's not a series that was made to alienate a vast proportion of gamers, but rather encourage anyone to play. If you really need me to explain why the Zelda doesn't have deep, tactical, strategic combat that has you dying over and over again, or at the very least, slowing your progression to a crawl, you don't really know anything about different types of videogames - cementing my suspicions. Aside from boss fights, which are brilliantly thought out and executed, combat isn't where the challenge is meant to be. You'll just need to get over that fact and cry your tears into another teacup.

...So I take it you haven't played either of the NES Zeldas or even Dark Souls for that matter.

Finished the first, which is legendary, dislike the second, and I've played a few hours of Demon's Souls when it first came out. This has to do with the conversation why?

When the series first started, they were the epitome of open-ended game design. You could explore wherever you want, whenever you want. You were that free to do almost anything you please.

You read this thread before commenting didn't you? You know we're talking about everything up to and including Majora's Mask, and nothing after, right? Lttp and Awakening refined the initial concept of LoZ into a more narrative-conscious adventure in a more fleshed out world. It has events, set-pieces, distinct lands, a smattering of side-quests, and does a lot of what couldn't be achieved on the NES, which love it as I do, is very much a game designed to work around the available hardware. The N64 games took the groundwork of titles thus far and redesigned the formula to work in three-dimensions, taking full advantage of what that offered and expanding all imaginable potential. They certainly don't need complete open-endedness to work, since they do so entirely on their own terms, and are two of the best games ever made. The underlying complexity in Majora's Mask - hidden from the player so they don't run off screaming - is so groundbreaking I don't know if it will ever be equalled by anything. Of course no-one really knows that because no-one really played it much, including you, or we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

you didn't have to deal with a fanfic-level of a story taking away the control from you

What? Which entry prior Wind Waker suffered from a 'fanfic' level of story that takes the control away from you? You can't just put words in a row and expect them to make sense. Zelda storylines - for the entries we're discussing - are about the least intrusive plotlines imaginable in an adventure game. You do the work, the world unfolds, events occur. It's hardly a series inundated with village upon village, cutscene after cutscene. The player defines nearly every progressive event through action, and not passive observation. Please don't waste time taking potshots that go through windows and into puddles, it's a waste of time.

the purpose of your then newfound weapons was to help you in combat rather than solve some basic puzzles

Er, we're reaching a little here. Remind me how often a new weapon in LoZ revolutionised the basic dispatching of enemies? Using new weapons and accessories to defeat standard enemies is basically unchanged throughout the series, but because it isn't hinged around combat at all, it's largely unnecessary to do so unless a particular enemy requires being robbed of their defense with a hookshot, stunned with a boomerang, or shot through the eye with an arrow (to name a few more obvious requirements). It's normally only bosses that require you to use newfound technologies to defeat, usually in tandem with other items and attacks. In Majora's Mask you actually need to transform into a Goron to outrun a rampaging boss in a circular tunnel.

And the puzzles aren't basic in the overall consideration of conquering a dungeon, says my tired fingers re-typing already well-established points.

The gameplay was semi-fast and VERY arcade-like that demanded some understanding from the player.

Yes, the first Zelda is quick, stripped down, beautifully put together. So are the others. All demand understanding from the player. Do you want some crutches now, or should I wait until you've blown both feet off and roll out the wheelchair?

What I'm trying to say is that they were CRPG/arcade hybrids. Hell, Zelda II even had a level-up system. NoA even marketed the series as a CRPG/arcade game, and I quote: "It has the fast action you'd expect from an arcade hit, along with all the depth and advanced roll playing of personal computer games. The best of both worlds!".

Ha ha, NoA. Always good for a laugh.

So yes, Dark Souls is a Zelda game made with current-gen technology.

No it's not, it's a dungeon crawler made with current-gen technology. Real nice way of slipping in bullshit facts. Elvis Presley was a Polar Bear and his real name was Marcellus Dreadlock and he based his musical melodies on the art of tantric sex.

The sooner you boys start realising Zelda is it's own style of adventure/arcade game, and isn't meant to be cut from the same cloth as the dice-rolling nerdventures you seem so in awe of, the sooner we can start finding some common understanding.

Dark Souls is also more similar to Zelda than the Puzzelda/Adventure bullshit Aonuma has turned the franchise into.

Well again, you're hazily trying to take the open-ended nature of the first Zelda and somehow strip it of its idiosyncracies - characteristics that remain prevalent in every entry ever made - and somehow relate it to a hardcore action dungeon crawler that's based on grinding the fuck out of things, chock full of weaponry and armour to find and level up... and devoid of puzzles. I'm aching for your points to have meaning here.

If it makes you feel better though, the current franchise IS some bullshit Aonuma has turned it into, and I'm just as unhappy about it as you. Since that was outlined almost two days and three pages ago, I wouldn't think it needed repeating.

I appreciate your concern, but I don't hope Christ saves you from anything.

Well I'm an Atheist, so he probably won't.


Right, I'm off now to meet some friends, drink some coffee and play some shmups. I'll grab some shovels for you lot to replace the ones you've already blunted.

[system11]

Mental note: never mention Zelda near Skykid.

[BIL]

Sinful: best new member 2013, tied with heisenbergman. What good is our warehouse full of nerdfight TNT without a detonator?

[Neathyr]

Well no-one ever said that. You're just making a gross-generalisation. We're only talking about one series of games and four games within that series. Are you on the right page now?

Well, you just did it over the course of this very thread (and I don't think anyone here would disagree with me) by proclaiming that people are wrong to think game x is better than two titles of your beloved series, like it was some holy truth in a twisted sense. I don't need to link your posts, unless you have short-attention span or something. You either accept the fact that people like different things or keep your gibber-gabber to yourself.

Indeed. I refer you to this choice excerpt from yours truly, in-bold for your "fenomenal" reading comprehension. You can find it on page 2 post 15:

"In the case of LTTP and Ocarina, public opinion is for once completely accurate. Since that's as common an occurrence as a hybrid solar eclipse..."

Ah yes, you kept using public opinion to backup your statement to further illustrate your lack of ability of constructing a cohesive argument, yet I'm the one who fails at basic reading skills? Get off your high horse, sunshine.

Right. Well you've done a great job there of addressing the part where I said Zelda isn't a combat-oriented game and provides nothing but collectibles if you feel the need to go hunting. So no, it's not deep, but yes, it is practical. I'm waiting - no burning - for you to tell me why it needs to be more? It's not a series that was made to alienate a vast proportion of gamers, but rather encourage anyone to play. If you really need me to explain why the Zelda doesn't have deep, tactical, strategic combat that has you dying over and over again, or at the very least, slowing your progression to a crawl, you don't really know anything about different types of videogames - cementing my suspicions.

I addressed the part about the combat found in 3D Zelda, and how it moves away from its original premise. Do you know that the first title of a series represents its genesis, how it was originally conceived? Said mechanics may be practical if you like brainless activities (which apparently you just confirmed that), sure.
Now, if I really have to explain to you about A.I. unpredictability, variety of weapons that bring a whole different level of gameplay, the importance of positioning, different types of pattern, then not only do you not enjoy challenging and/or deep mechanics (or at least on a "OK" level), but you can't make false claims like "game design perfection" as if you know squat about it. Maybe a story-driven game is more of your thing, titles where mostly anyone can finish.

Aside from boss fights, which are brilliantly thought out and executed, combat isn't where the challenge is meant to be. You'll just need to get over that fact and cry your tears into another teacup

Oh. Use the item you just received in this very dungeon to attack the boss ad nauseum whenever he tells you to. That's mastery of game design right there. But reading such thing coming from you doesn't really surprise me.
Tears? I'm not the one saying some made-up elementary school-level expressions to make me feel better about myself.

Finished the first, which is legendary, dislike the second, and I've played a few hours of Demon's Souls when it first came out. This has to do with the conversation why?

Because I brought it up, you disagreed with me and I later explained to you why both series are very similar? A regular thing to occur on an online discussion forum?

You read this thread before commenting didn't you? You know we're talking about everything up to and including Majora's Mask, and nothing after, right? Lttp and Awakening refined the initial concept of LoZ into a more narrative-conscious adventure in a more fleshed out world. It has events, set-pieces, distinct lands, a smattering of side-quests, and does a lot of what couldn't be achieved on the NES, which love it as I do, is very much a game designed to work around the available hardware. The N64 games took the groundwork of titles thus far and redesigned the formula to work in three-dimensions, taking full advantage of what that offered and expanding all imaginable potential. They certainly don't need complete open-endedness to work, since they do so entirely on their own terms, and are two of the best games ever made. The underlying complexity in Majora's Mask - hidden from the player so they don't run off screaming - is so groundbreaking I don't know if it will ever be equalled by anything. Of course no-one really knows that because no-one really played it much, including you, or we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

You do know that Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are 3D games, right? I bolded the important part so you could be able to read it. Are we on the same page? If you say so...
The rest of this part just shows how you agree with my point and appreciate more gimmick elements rather than from a gameplay POV. There was no predetermined narrative/set-pieces in the original. The story was told by YOU, in whatever way you wanted. Want to quickly face Ganon and save Hyrule from his reign of tyranny? You can do so. Gothic 2, a game which runs on a hardware (at least) significantly more powerful than the N64, successfully presented an even more fleshed out non-linearity/open-ended approach with its philosophy, and give the player complete and total control over your character. All in the while offering an actual menacing world that Hyrule could only hope to achieve in its wildest dreams. But it seems the one who doesn't play the aforementioned games is not me.

What? Which entry prior Wind Waker suffered from a 'fanfic' level of story that takes the control away from you?

I may have gone a little overboard with the pre-GameCube games in that aspect, I admit. I failed to point out they were more visible in every Zelda game as soon as Aonuma took over.

You can't just put words in a row and expect them to make sense.

You mean the majority of your statements about how brilliant the game design is in MM, yet you even acknowledged yourself by saying the controls are barely good?

Er, we're reaching a little here. Remind me how often a new weapon in LoZ revolutionised the basic dispatching of enemies? Using new weapons and accessories to defeat standard enemies is basically unchanged throughout the series, but because it isn't hinged around combat at all, it's largely unnecessary to do so unless a particular enemy requires being robbed of their defense with a hookshot, stunned with a boomerang, or shot through the eye with an arrow (to name a few more obvious requirements). It's normally only bosses that require you to use newfound technologies to defeat, usually in tandem with other items and attacks. In Majora's Mask you actually need to transform into a Goron to outrun a rampaging boss in a circular tunnel.

And the puzzles aren't basic in the overall consideration of conquering a dungeon, says my tired fingers re-typing already well-established points.

Re-read my third response in this post. The fact that you have to do a specific movement in MM doesn't show gameplay variety. It means you have to do what the game designer had in mind, giving the player less freedom to play around, not unlike most games nowadays.

I could argue that Dark Souls is far from being the grindfest you're making it out to be (further proof that you haven't even touched it), but the rest of your post is just some nonsense, coupled with bits of ignorance compressed into an online post while ignoring most key-points of what I typed, so it's just useless for me to keep going. Whatever makes you sleep better.

[Hagane]

and somehow relate it to a hardcore action dungeon crawler that's based on grinding the fuck out of things, chock full of weaponry and armour to find and level up... and devoid of puzzles. I'm aching for your points to have meaning here.

Grinding is completely unnecesary in Dark Souls. It's based around learning enemy patterns and responding accordingly with your own skills (by the way, all the basics you need are available right from the start).

You say that the challenge in Zelda is in overcoming dungeons and not in combat or puzzles, but what else is there to do in Zelda dungeons other than combat and puzzles? I'm playing ALttP right now for the sake of discussion, and so far Neathyr is 100% right as far as I can see.

[Mortificator]

There was no predetermined narrative/set-pieces in the original. The story was told by YOU, in whatever way you wanted. Want to quickly face Ganon and save Hyrule from his reign of tyranny? You can do so.

The predetermined narrative of the original game is that Link goes through eight dungeons and collects eight Triforce pieces, then goes to Death Mountain and kills Ganon to rescue Zelda. It's strange to say that doing so quickly changes the story. Would you say you can change the story of King Kong too, by fast-forwarding so he quickly falls off the Empire State Building?

[Obiwanshinobi]

If you think highly of Gothic, make sure you play FFCCh: The Crystal Bearers. It's a very fool-proof console game, but messing with it can be as engrossing as Gothic was for me.
Steambot Chronicles also is a respectable attempt do do something along those lines in 3D.
Xenoblade Chronicles, however, was marred by its samey combat and grinding being THE way to go.

[Rob]

and I've played a few hours of Demon's Souls when it first came out.

I know what happened here.

[Neathyr]

There was no predetermined narrative/set-pieces in the original. The story was told by YOU, in whatever way you wanted. Want to quickly face Ganon and save Hyrule from his reign of tyranny? You can do so.

The predetermined narrative of the original game is that Link goes through eight dungeons and collects eight Triforce pieces, then goes to Death Mountain and kills Ganon to rescue Zelda. It's strange to say that doing so quickly changes the story. Would you say you can change the story of King Kong too, by fast-forwarding so he quickly falls off the Empire State Building?

I guess the predetermined thing just came out. I was actually going to say that you can tell the story in any way you want. For instance, in the original Super Mario Bros., you go through the Mushroom Kingdom and defeat Bowser in order to rescue Peach. However, if you wish to skip some worlds so you can avoid certain enemies, you can do it. Feel like defeating all fake Bowsers and plow through the entire campaign? Sure, why not. Want to speedrun and get to the final level ASAP? Alright. And thus telling your "story" in many different ways. Come to think of it, most Mario games give you such option, even the Galaxy duology.
Truthfully, I don't get to speak in English that often, so a few fuck-ups are bound to happen...

If you think highly of Gothic, make sure you play FFCCh: The Crystal Bearers. It's a very fool-proof console game, but messing with it can be as engrossing as Gothic was for me.
Steambot Chronicles also is a respectable attempt do do something along those lines in 3D.
Xenoblade Chronicles, however, was marred by its samey combat and grinding being THE way to go.

I heard you get to keep your equipments/stats even after death, so I got a little turned off by this feature. That, and it's a Final Fantasy game... I found it on a sale last week but I didn't even bother.
But I'll make sure to take a look at it. Thanks...
What about Xenoblade? Is it really a single-player MMO type of game? Even through I dislike jRPGs, I get the feeling this one may be the exception of the rule, mostly from the vast and somewhat rich environments I keep seeing on pictures. Maybe the exploration is close to Piranha Bytes' standards or is it just illusion?

[Despatche]

what skykid has said about ocarina of time and majora's mask is mostly true. what anyone has said about later games and about aonuma is false, and it's not his fault anyway.

devs are irrelevant. everyone got hit hard by whatever the fuck it was in the early 2000s that caused us to lose all our style, and while those old devs are trying their hardest to hang on to what they have, it may as well be fueled by memories and thus faulty. that loss of style will continue to be spread around until, as usual, we force ourselves to seek out something new... no one will ever realize that what happened within this decade is completely different than any single decade prior. but i only say this because i believe things are getting somewhat better; if they suddenly get worse anytime soon, most of the previous just goes into effect harder.

now let's go play some real game like zuma or something.

edit: it's taking you "several minutes" to push around a box because your brain is primed to completely ruin the point

[BryanM]

Never was crazy about Ocarina of Time. Lots of dead time in that game. The box shoving rooms especially annoyed the shit out of me. "Okay. I'm.... slowly pushing a box. Why is this taking several minutes to accomplish instead of a couple seconds?"

I guess the predetermined thing just came out. I was actually going to say that you can tell the story in any way you want. For instance, in the original Super Mario Bros., you go through the Mushroom Kingdom and defeat Bowser in order to rescue Peach. However, if you wish to skip some worlds so you can avoid certain enemies, you can do it.

A few years ago I was fiddling on making my own simple EVO/Platform Shooter/Marioish (the 8-bit art was the only Marioish thing about it) game. With simple randomly generated levels. Obviously I've thought about this sort of thing a lot. That thing we call variance.

The warp zones in the early mario games are nearly absolutely essential in keeping the longevity of the game fresh. They're functionally like the randomly generated stages of roguelikes: they make it so each playthrough can be different. The various routes in Umihara Kawase are a better example in execution of fixed levels, variant paths.

Personally I've always wanted a Zelda clone with classes in it. Since that's such a big variance factor.

As to grinding, Sympathy of the Night is an example of probably overdoing it. (That was a game where its obvious they wanted everyone to be able to beat with no effort, and mission accomplished and then some I say.) There's nothing wrong with it at all, you just need aggressive caps on it. Whether that's a level cap that raises as you kill bosses, or all that exp does is raise your ability to equip attacks. Building up your little guy in EVO was kind of awesome imo.

As an aside I think variance is the absolute most important design factor in non-competitive games. (And that includes cutthroat stuff like the Talisman board game.) It's a concept that's much more holistic even simply random stages or different characters: the obsession with the Fantasy genre in MMOs is mostly due to the breadth of variety it allows. You can literally throw anything in there and have it work.

[Ganelon]

Ha, don't worry, Skykid. I still like you but you have to calm down. As discussed early in this thread, there are no absolutes in gaming taste. Otherwise, we'd all be discussing Madden and Call of Duty instead. Just because I recognize that my view differs from the views of many and that I don't feel what makes Zelda so appealing doesn't mean I think my views are any less meaningful.

For example, some folks really enjoy the Lunar RPG series while others don't get it. The one who don't get it simply can't connect to the atmosphere of the game; their complaints of simple mechanics and a fairly predictable epic story aren't necessarily wrong. There's a part of the game that fans emphasize that non-fans are missing due to subjective areas of interest.

Apparently, quite a few folks here feel that way with regards to Zelda while others like you can't believe whatever it is you're seeing in the games isn't obviously apparent to everyone. And at that point, everyone really just has to accept that folks have differing opinions and move on.

Switching to ex-Nintendo - is Killer Instinct still fated to be that franchise where everybody looks back on each outing after 10 years with all the fondness one feels for a hangover? Does anybody think the games are particularly special?

Based on popularity rankings from top mainstream gaming sites, Killer Instinct is actually one of the most anticipated Xbox One games. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it'll sell well but it's an interesting sign. I enjoyed the original back in the day but not anywhere near the same level as SF and MK. Whatever the case, the data from the 4 versions (free with a la carte IAP, $20 version, $40 version with costumes, $60 version with pins) will be a marketing analytical dream.

If you think highly of Gothic, make sure you play FFCCh: The Crystal Bearers. It's a very fool-proof console game, but messing with it can be as engrossing as Gothic was for me.
Steambot Chronicles also is a respectable attempt do do something along those lines in 3D.

No wonder I didn't find any of these RPGs interesting. They must all target an atmosphere that doesn't appeal to me. Same with Zelda and Dark Souls.