Support NeoGAF

[Richie]

Albeit unsurprising, it's sad to see how everything else from Miyamoto's interview is being ignored in favor of Zelda discussion. Many other interesting tidbits in here:

In the article Miya reveals the creation he's most proud of to be the first Pikmin.
He considers consoles' launch the hardest moments in his career.
Miyamoto is confident NintendoLand will inspire devs on innovative uses for the GamePad.
"Now we will see how many studios will make games exclusively with the two screens in mind".

What about his philosophy when deciding which games to make?

1) Something no one's ever done before.
2) Something that is going to sell a lot at the time.
3) Something that failed in the past, and come back with a vengeance.

Things that would make for more interesting (and fresh) debate, IHMO.

Props to nmanma for actually calling attention to points in the interview not found in the OP

 

[Refugio]

A perpetuated myth. He did not hate DKC.

I remember first hearing about it on G4's Icons. I actually went and rewatched that episode because of this thread and it's pretty funny. The way they show Miyamoto's picture and the music/sound effects they use really makes him seem comically evil lol.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

so Zelda doesn't need to be Zelda anymore to avoid backlash. You people are so cute

Nintendo has straight up experimented with Metroid, gracefully tweaked and updated Mario with Sunshine and Galaxy, and has made new ways to play games a staple of their marketing campaign.

What the heck is wrong with them doing something different with Zelda?

 

[volpone]

Sometimes I think the problem Zelda and its fanbase suffers from, is an inflated sense of gravitas with what The Legend of Zelda even is.

I am not too young; I'm 38. I was already past the "early childhood christmas" phase when I played games like Zelda II, and A Link to the Past. Back in the day, I never had the sense that The Legend of Zelda was as big of a deal as people make it out to be. To be sure, Zelda is a storied series. Zelda has a lot of iconic elements that have become tropes and cultural references in gaming. That's the biggest contribution it's made.

But in its original context, Zelda was just "another good Nintendo game". It wasn't above or below Super Mario, Metroid, Mario Kart, or anything else. It was seen as a gold star example of how to make a solid adventure game, and nobody made them quite like Nintendo, so yes, Zelda was special. And despite all the cynicism aimed at Nintendo today, nobody still makes them like Nintendo. Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and yes, the DS duology - set aside bitch fests over hating X element from a game, be objective about it, and nothing has quite the polish and attention to detail of an in-house Nintendo production. Even if it's not a title you, personally, love.

What I think did the real damage to Zelda was Ocarina of Time. That game is put on a pedestal as few video games ever have been. I believe one of the main reasons is shock value. It arrived at the time of the great transition to 3D games. It was the first large scope 3D action adventure game. Nobody had ever seen anything like it - it was like a Battle Arena Toshinden, if Battle Arena Toshinden had ha ha, been a good game after the shock and awe of a three dimensional world wore off. Add to that the "Nintendo childhood effect", where so many people have Nintendo games burned into their brain on christmas morning, creating a aura of chemically entrenched nostalgia that will never be recreated.

As a result, suddenly Zelda went from being just another quality game in Nintendo's portfolio with beloved bits of lore, to supposedly being a game the industry hinged on. I really do get the impression that a lot of people possess a virtually subconscious expectation that every Zelda game is supposed to be a gamechanger. Like a centerpiece release for the entire gaming landscape. And in truth, objectively, after only one game (OOT), it's been nothing but criticism and scorn that every subsequent Zelda game hasn't had the same impact as Ocarina of Time. Nintendo, meanwhile, has mainly focused on just making good Zelda games. The truth is they've succeeded. Regardless of how each game compares to another Zelda, the games are still on a high level of quality. It's one of those situations where I can't help but think if you removed the name from the cover and called it something else, people would generally applaud it as brilliant. Sometimes I think we seriously need a Folger's Taste Test in video gaming. Too much of people's reaction to a game always seem wrapped up in their expectations. And for die hard fans of a series, the hope that a new entry will be a religious experience.

This needs to be a disclaimer adorned above every Zelda discussion from here to the end of time.

 

[onilink88]

What the heck is wrong with them doing something different with Zelda?

They've experimented plenty within the boundaries of what the series allows. How else would you explain the ridiculous fragmentation of the fanbase?

Of course, this is going to be ignored because loljapan.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

Nintendo has straight up experimented with Metroid, gracefully tweaked and updated Mario with Sunshine and Galaxy, and has made new ways to play games a staple of their marketing campaign.

What the heck is wrong with them doing something different with Zelda?

You don't think motion controls are different? Also SS has a clear difference to the other 3D games in terms of the way the world is structured(see all the complaints in the official thread).

 

[GlassBox]

The Zelda fanbase in a nutshell

 

[Blood Diamonds]

They've experimented plenty within the boundaries of what the series allows. How else would you explain the ridiculous fragmentation of the fanbase?

Of course, this is going to be ignored because loljapan.

BUT IT'S NOT THE ZELDA I REMEMBER AND WANT.

IT'S. NOT. GOOD.

 

[MYE]

Sometimes I think the problem Zelda and its fanbase suffers from, is an inflated sense of gravitas with what The Legend of Zelda even is.

I am not too young; I'm 38. I was already past the "early childhood christmas" phase when I played games like Zelda II, and A Link to the Past. Back in the day, I never had the sense that The Legend of Zelda was as big of a deal as people make it out to be. To be sure, Zelda is a storied series. Zelda has a lot of iconic elements that have become tropes and cultural references in gaming. That's the biggest contribution it's made.

But in its original context, Zelda was just "another good Nintendo game". It wasn't above or below Super Mario, Metroid, Mario Kart, or anything else. It was seen as a gold star example of how to make a solid adventure game, and nobody made them quite like Nintendo, so yes, Zelda was special. And despite all the cynicism aimed at Nintendo today, nobody still makes them like Nintendo. Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and yes, the DS duology - set aside bitch fests over hating X element from a game, be objective about it, and nothing has quite the polish and attention to detail of an in-house Nintendo production. Even if it's not a title you, personally, love.

What I think did the real damage to Zelda was Ocarina of Time. That game is put on a pedestal as few video games ever have been. I believe one of the main reasons is shock value. It arrived at the time of the great transition to 3D games. It was the first large scope 3D action adventure game. Nobody had ever seen anything like it - it was like a Battle Arena Toshinden, if Battle Arena Toshinden had ha ha, been a good game after the shock and awe of a three dimensional world wore off. Add to that the "Nintendo childhood effect", where so many people have Nintendo games burned into their brain on christmas morning, creating a aura of chemically entrenched nostalgia that will never be recreated.

As a result, suddenly Zelda went from being just another quality game in Nintendo's portfolio with beloved bits of lore, to supposedly being a game the industry hinged on. I really do get the impression that a lot of people possess a virtually subconscious expectation that every Zelda game is supposed to be a gamechanger. Like a centerpiece release for the entire gaming landscape. And in truth, objectively, after only one game (OOT), it's been nothing but criticism and scorn that every subsequent Zelda game hasn't had the same impact as Ocarina of Time. Nintendo, meanwhile, has mainly focused on just making good Zelda games. The truth is they've succeeded. Regardless of how each game compares to another Zelda, the games are still on a high level of quality. It's one of those situations where I can't help but think if you removed the name from the cover and called it something else, people would generally applaud it as brilliant. Sometimes I think we seriously need a Folger's Taste Test in video gaming. Too much of people's reaction to a game always seem wrapped up in their expectations. And for die hard fans of a series, the hope that a new entry will be a religious experience.

This. Fucking this

Well said

 

[Currygan]

Nintendo has straight up experimented with Metroid, gracefully tweaked and updated Mario with Sunshine and Galaxy, and has made new ways to play games a staple of their marketing campaign.

What the heck is wrong with them doing something different with Zelda?

are you sure you've played any 3D Zelda?

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

You don't think motion controls are different? Also SS has a clear difference to the other 3D games in terms of the way the world is structured(see all the complaints in the official thread).

Nope, and I felt SS world was more restricted. There are things I liked about SS though. Bug catching/potion stuff and the aesthetic in general was really nice. I'll give Nintendo credit that they at least weren't shy about giving SS a nice art style.

I hated using the beetle, though.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

Nope, and I felt SS world was more restricted. There are things I liked about SS though. Bug catching/potion stuff and the aesthetic in general was really nice. I'll give Nintendo credit that they at least weren't shy about giving SS a nice art style.

I hated using the beetle, though.

So even though they changed the way the world is structured(they clearly moved from a largely empty overworld in TP to smaller areas that tried to add more puzzley parts to the overworld ) & they changed the control scheme significantly, added new items (& removed what is probably the most iconic Zelda item) they haven't changed Zelda at all?

 

[Supermanisdead]

Too bad we didn't get a Zelda game as ambitious as Xenoblade on the Wii.

Apples and Oranges. I love Xenoblade for what it brought to the JRPG genre, but Skyward Sword takes motion control to a whole new level, which is certainly just as ambitious.

 

[faridmon]

I am with Miyamoto on this. Instead of giving them Zelda, they should do another F-Zero. Win-Win situation.

 

[Snakeyes]

I feel that Zelda does need a refresh but one not as drastic as some people think.

- Use a mix of LttP and MM as a template.
- Seamless world.
- Mostly non-linear progression.
- Smarter, more challenging combat.
- Less items but more ways to use them.

And there you have it. Easier said than done but I think this would satisfy the majority of Zelda fans.

 

[onilink88]

satisfy the majority of Zelda fans.

I maintain it's damn well impossible to make a universally appealing Zelda, at this point.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

So even though they changed the way the world is structured(they clearly moved from a largely empty overworld in TP to smaller areas that tried to add more puzzley parts to the overworld ) & they changed the control scheme significantly, added new items (& removed what is probably the most iconic Zelda item) they haven't changed Zelda at all?

No, not really?

Pairing down your world into a hubworld, and the control scheme isn't changed. They merely replaced buttons with waggle.

No significant changes to the game and gameplay were made.

 

[Snakeyes]

I maintain it's damn well impossible to make a universally appealing Zelda, at this point.

Yeah, you can't expect to please everyone but there's a way to address the more common complaints. Like filler and linearity for instance.

No significant changes to the game and gameplay were made.

Hey, the parkour stuff was a pretty cool addition.

 

[Supermanisdead]

I feel that Zelda does need a refresh but one not as drastic as some people think.

- Use a mix of LttP and MM as a template.
- Seamless world.
- Mostly non-linear progression.
- Smarter combat a la Souls.
- Less items but more ways to use them.

And there you have it. Easier said than done but I think this would satisfy the majority of Zelda fans.

These 2 points:

There's already plenty of ways to use items so making less of them would be silly. And combat can stay as it is, but with more moves. Changing it to anything like Dark Souls would be nuts.

 

[CaVaYeRo]

Albeit unsurprising, it's sad to see how everything else from Miyamoto's interview is being ignored in favor of Zelda discussion. Many other interesting tidbits in here:

In the article Miya reveals the creation he's most proud of to be the first Pikmin.
He considers consoles' launch the hardest moments in his career.
Miyamoto is confident NintendoLand will inspire devs on innovative uses for the GamePad.
"Now we will see how many studios will make games exclusively with the two screens in mind".

What about his philosophy when deciding which games to make?

1) Something no one's ever done before.
2) Something that is going to sell a lot at the time.
3) Something that failed in the past, and come back with a vengeance.

Things that would make for more interesting (and fresh) debate, IHMO.

Props to nmanma for actually calling attention to points in the interview not found in the OP

Cheers! Yeah, I liked that a lot too. Good topic.

And yeah, of course the Retro thing is just a matter of difficult communication due to distance, time zone etc. JUST THAT.

 

[Makonero]

I maintain it's damn well impossible to make a universally appealing Zelda, at this point.

This. Just this. Zelda is too many things to too many people. You can't satisfy people when everyone has a different idea of what Zelda is.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

No, not really?

Pairing down your world into a hubworld, and the control scheme isn't changed. They merely replaced buttons with waggle.

No significant changes to the game and gameplay were made.

I completely disagree with everything you have written, I fail to see how somebody could have played SS & thought that( from the menus to the swordfighting, none of which could be boiled down to replacing buttons with waggle). Let me put it in another way, do you thinn the overworlds in TP & SS are the same? Do you honestly think that TP's combat is the same as SS?

 

[Snakeyes]

These 2 points:

There's already plenty of ways to use items so making less of them would be silly. And combat can stay as it is, but with more moves. Changing it to anything like Dark Souls would be nuts.

I probably should've said more difficult, with harder enemy patterns and all that. Basically make the encounters more dynamic and threatening.

And about items? The bug catcher net is a glorified bottle. The slingshot is a gimped bow. The Clawshot and the whip could've easily been combined into a single item. The Gust Bellows? Well, you get the idea. There's plenty of room for improvement.

 

[KirbYuuYuu]

Zelda is at the point that where Sonic was at, with the cycle and too many people spouting off ideas to fix it, superficial or not. Some don't actually bother to look at Zelda games and see what has gotten worse be it small details or bigger details and may go oh hay lets make it like another game, despite the fact that we can still have the same problems.

It's really sad there's even a cycle for this franchise, because it's over good games at their worst (outside of PH), so it's like... more pathetic than Sonic. It's like, mention Zelda at some point, it becomes a bloodbath, it's practically like talking to your friends about religion and politics at this point, and I'm pretty much tired of all this.

 

[CaptNfantasy]

Retro quote just means theres a language/distance barrier in giving them Zelda. Its a very important franchise and breaking it up in that way would be unhelpful for development.

Anyway - since when has Retro been the best for Zelda?

Never. Some fan thought it would.

 

[onilink88]

more common complaints. Like filler and linearity for instance.

That's another problem: narrowing down exactly what constitutes a problem. On my side of the woods, linearity and filler aren't seen as inherently bad things nor do they constitute the majority of complaints.

 

[Of All Trades]

This. Fucking this

Well said

Bullshit, if he had said the exact same thing except that the quality of Zelda games has been on a downward trend and occupied a B-tier quality slot in gaming you'd be calling for his head. The main thing he's correct about is that if you pulled the Zelda name off the titles then certain people would judge it differently, except that I think the trend would be severely downwards.

 

[decoyplatypus]

Too much of people's reaction to a game always seem wrapped up in their expectations. And for die hard fans of a series, the hope that a new entry will be a religious experience.

I don't disagree that high expectations can prevent people from enjoying games that actually have a lot to recommend them, but I want to gently push back on this point:

1. How possible is it for fans of a series to go in without some strong expectations as to the product they're purchasing? Previous game experiences are always going to frame your understanding of the new game. The only way to obscure the fact that PH has considerably simpler dungeons than previous Zeldas is to take away the player's knowledge of previous Zeldas. And I'm not sure that putting a different label on the box would make a big difference: look at all the debate over whether Okami or Darksiders are effective Zelda-clones.

2. You say that Nintendo has mostly focused on making good Zelda games (rather than obsessing over the need for an OoT-like gamechanger), but I think there is pretty good evidence in the statements of Nintendo staff (Miyamoto and Aonuma in particular) and in the games themselves (TP especially) that Nintendo wants badly to create "the best Zelda game ever," and that they at least think that that is a matter of topping OoT. Now, fixating on OoT may not be a good way to create a similarly epochal Zelda, but I'm not sure the ambition is in itself a bad thing. Why shouldn't fans want a transcendent experience? There are few enough of them to go around. Think about Pixar for a moment: coming off of their first few movies, they clearly had all the talent in the world. But wouldn't it have been sad if they'd settled for making good movies and never tried to make a transcendent one (let's stipulate for the sake of argument that The Incredibles or WALL-E counts)? And isn't it disappointing that their recent movies have been content to be merely good? You could say that without the expectations built up from their earlier movies, people would have a clearer view of the positive elements in Cars or Brave, and I don't at all want to encourage close-mindedness toward apparently minor works, but isn't it ultimately better that people ask for more ambition from creators who have shown themselves capable of great things?

 

[Holy Order Sol]

The reason it's stagnant.

but it's not

 

[IrishNinja]

pretty interesting stuff, OP should be updated with some of the new translations. man i really hope the stuff shikimaru posted about possibilities for the new building & having miyamoto step over to a small team to train new blood works out, its sounding more like his lane these days.

So basically, Miyamoto is afraid that Retro could do a better work than Japan with Zelda.

That fucker is really a dictator.

Bullshit. Miyamoto & crew knows what Retro did with Metroid Prime and DKCR and he's scared to death they'll blow Zelda into something way better than what they could do. He'll have to die in order for Retro to get a shot at Mario or Zelda. Until then, they'll probably just have to deal with franchises like Star Fox, F-Zero, etc

haha zelda threads always bring out the clownshoes

 

[Freshmaker]

I don't get why they won't let Retro do a Zelda. They let Capcom do several for pete's sake.

Is it just because they're an American company? Then why have American companies done Metroid, Donkey Kong, and Mario games before? Just let them take a crack at it.

What difference does it make? Japan retains control over the story regardless so it's not like Retro would get to do a grimdark open world FPS RPG hybrid with the franchise regardless.

 

[ChosenPredator]

damn seems to be a heavy split between it being stagnate and it being good the way it's been with some additions here and there..kinda agree with both sides though if they can find a really good balance that would be sweet.

 

[MYE]

Bullshit, if he had said the exact same thing except that the quality of Zelda games has been on a downward trend and occupied a B-tier quality slot in gaming you'd be calling for his head.

You mean I would disagree with him if he said the opposite of that thing he said that I happen to agree with?
You would be correct then, cuz thats how it usually works.

The main thing he's correct about is that if you pulled the Zelda name off the titles then certain people would judge it differently, except that I think the trend would be severely downwards.

Judging by how well recieved every game that attempts to use the Zelda formula or a part of it is, I think you are wrong.

 

[ASIS]

Since this unfortunately became a Zelda thread. I just need to ask this. I heard that SS used the WW engine. a game that launched 9 years ago. So do you think Nintendo will still use that engine for Zelda U? Also do you think that's why people think Zelda is all the same? Because it behaves the same?

 

[Blood Diamonds]

No, not really?

Pairing down your world into a hubworld, and the control scheme isn't changed. They merely replaced buttons with waggle.

No significant changes to the game and gameplay were made.

What. The. Fuck.

Oh, yeah, you know, let's just ignore how enemies now required more strategy, because that's not a change at all, or how you now have the ability to run, nope, it's not a change. How you can upgrade items, haha, that's stupid, flying? Nope not the change I wanted.

What the fuck are you people asking for at this point?

 

[Spieler Eins]

haha zelda threads always bring out the clownshoes

Now, now - don't you see? Nintendo not giving in to some fans irrational wet dreams that involve handing over every project to Retro Studios and ,,shaking up'' Zelda by making it open world and ,,modern'' are CLEAR indicators that Miyamoto is an angry, Japanese stereotype who wants to hinder our enjoyment because his company produces great games under different supervision than his, not to mention in filfthy foreign countries!!1

 

[Synless]

Retro quote just means theres a language/distance barrier in giving them Zelda. Its a very important franchise and breaking it up in that way would be unhelpful for development.

Anyway - since when has Retro been the best for Zelda?

Since they made 4 successful and critically acclaimed games from existing franchises. They would likely make an unrivaled Zelda imo.

 

[Snakeyes]

That's another problem: narrowing down exactly what constitutes a problem. On my side of the woods, linearity and filler aren't seen as inherently bad things nor do they constitute the majority of complaints.

Point taken.

I'm kinda curious about what your complaints are.

 

[ASIS]

What. The. Fuck.

Oh, yeah, you know, let's just ignore how enemies now required more strategy, because that's not a change at all, or how you know have the ability to run, nope, it's not a change. How you can upgrade, haha, that's stupid, flying? Nope not the change I wanted.

What the fuck are you people asking for at this point?

the changes you mentioned aren't even the most important ones. What SS really changed is the pace of a Zelda. The meaning and design of dungeons have completely changed. and the multiple overworlds have been handled in a way never done before in a Zelda. Boss fights don't have a singular pattern anymore and don't nessicarily have to be in a dungeon anymore. Let's not even get into the fact that SS isn't "just" about change and that it has its own identity regardless of that. The game boasts such a unique art style, wonderful and bold control scheme, and finally some orchestrated music to boot.

Even minor things, like the rupee expenditure, day/night system, etc. have changed in SS.

 

[Blood Diamonds]

the changes you mentioned aren't even the most important ones. What SS really changed is the pace of a Zelda. The meaning and design of dungeons have completely changed. and the multiple overworlds have been handled in a way never done before in a Zelda. Boss fights don't have a singular pattern anymore and don't nessicarily have to be in a dungeon anymore. Let's not even get into the fact that SS isn't "just" about change and that it has its own identity regardless of that. The game boasts such a unique art style, wonderful and bold control scheme, and finally some orchestrated music to boot.

Even minor things, like the rupee expenditure, day/night system, etc. have changed in SS.

Completely agree, I don't see what some of the people here are arguing about, Zelda has changed and evolved over the years into something amazing that manages to resemble what made it Zelda. I feel like some of the people in this thread have not even played the games they are against, it's unbelievable.

 

[Shion]

Apples and Oranges. I love Xenoblade for what it brought to the JRPG genre, but Skyward Sword takes motion control to a whole new level, which is certainly just as ambitious.

I don't say that implementing motion controls into a core game isn't ambitious but, well, when I play a Zelda game I don't really care for motion controls (especially if it results to unnecessary uses such as waggle jumps, motion flying, motion swimming and harp mini-games). I care for an ambitious, immersive, world, difficult, maze-like, dungeons, an impressive overworld, a variety of beautiful environments, strong atmosphere, memorable NPCs, clever puzzles, a strong sense of adventure and the ability to explore, travel and discover things in an immersive fantasy world.

So I prefer a Zelda game that's ambitious in these things, than motion controls.

 

[ASIS]

Well, when I play a Zelda game I don't really care for motion controls (especially if it results to unnecessary uses such as waggle jumps, motion flying, motion swimming and harp mini-games). I care for an ambitious, immersive, world, difficult, maze-like, dungeons, an impressive overworld, a variety of beautiful environments, strong atmosphere, memorable NPCs, clever puzzles, a strong sense of adventure and the ability to explore, travel and discover things in an immersive fantasy world.

Yeah, that's the problem. Everyone wants something different from Zelda. I, for one, thought the motion controls work Perfectly for the franchise. And I did get a sense of adventure from all Zelda's, and while I didn't get the exploration in SS as much as Other titles, it was just never meant to be the title that focuses on such a thing, instead they focused on completely different things. You might not like them, but it doesn't mean it wasn't ambitious.

 

[Neff]

Sometimes I think the problem Zelda and its fanbase suffers from, is an inflated sense of gravitas with what The Legend of Zelda even is.

I am not too young; I'm 38. I was already past the "early childhood christmas" phase when I played games like Zelda II, and A Link to the Past. Back in the day, I never had the sense that The Legend of Zelda was as big of a deal as people make it out to be. To be sure, Zelda is a storied series. Zelda has a lot of iconic elements that have become tropes and cultural references in gaming. That's the biggest contribution it's made.

But in its original context, Zelda was just "another good Nintendo game". It wasn't above or below Super Mario, Metroid, Mario Kart, or anything else. It was seen as a gold star example of how to make a solid adventure game, and nobody made them quite like Nintendo, so yes, Zelda was special. And despite all the cynicism aimed at Nintendo today, nobody still makes them like Nintendo. Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, and yes, the DS duology - set aside bitch fests over hating X element from a game, be objective about it, and nothing has quite the polish and attention to detail of an in-house Nintendo production. Even if it's not a title you, personally, love.

What I think did the real damage to Zelda was Ocarina of Time. That game is put on a pedestal as few video games ever have been. I believe one of the main reasons is shock value. It arrived at the time of the great transition to 3D games. It was the first large scope 3D action adventure game. Nobody had ever seen anything like it - it was like a Battle Arena Toshinden, if Battle Arena Toshinden had ha ha, been a good game after the shock and awe of a three dimensional world wore off. Add to that the "Nintendo childhood effect", where so many people have Nintendo games burned into their brain on christmas morning, creating a aura of chemically entrenched nostalgia that will never be recreated.

As a result, suddenly Zelda went from being just another quality game in Nintendo's portfolio with beloved bits of lore, to supposedly being a game the industry hinged on. I really do get the impression that a lot of people possess a virtually subconscious expectation that every Zelda game is supposed to be a gamechanger. Like a centerpiece release for the entire gaming landscape. And in truth, objectively, after only one game (OOT), it's been nothing but criticism and scorn that every subsequent Zelda game hasn't had the same impact as Ocarina of Time. Nintendo, meanwhile, has mainly focused on just making good Zelda games. The truth is they've succeeded. Regardless of how each game compares to another Zelda, the games are still on a high level of quality. It's one of those situations where I can't help but think if you removed the name from the cover and called it something else, people would generally applaud it as brilliant. Sometimes I think we seriously need a Folger's Taste Test in video gaming. Too much of people's reaction to a game always seem wrapped up in their expectations. And for die hard fans of a series, the hope that a new entry will be a religious experience.

My view is that the Nintendo 64 just wasn't ready for 3D Zelda. Despite Ocarina doing some incredible things, and at the time most definitely being an incredible game, I was ultimately disappointed by it, due to a mindblowingly bland overworld and sluggish pace. Given the perfection of LttP and Link's Awakening, I was expecting too much, and Nintendo couldn't deliver a comparable 3D experience on a cartridge. Even though subsequent 3D Zeldas took steps forward (and a few back), and were excellent games, I still don't believe we've yet had the 3D Zelda that does the formula justice.

 

[Fantasmo]

Can they just drop these shitty assumptions about controllers and start packing extras in for free? What the fuck put ONE Wiimote+ and a sensor bar in the box you buffoons. Gee I wonder how many people had Zelda Four Swords and 4 Gameboys ten years ago, like 5?

Where's the huge support for titles that use the circle pad plus?

Come on, put the remote in and people will publish games for it this isn't a tough concept. Or don't and deal with low sales and number of titles.

I'm not even buying a Wii U and this comment makes me mad.

 

[decoyplatypus]

the changes you mentioned aren't even the most important ones. What SS really changed is the pace of a Zelda. The meaning and design of dungeons have completely changed. and the multiple overworlds have been handled in a way never done before in a Zelda. Boss fights don't have a singular pattern anymore and don't nessicarily have to be in a dungeon anymore. Let's not even get into the fact that SS isn't "just" about change and that it has its own identity regardless of that. The game boasts such a unique art style, wonderful and bold control scheme, and finally some orchestrated music to boot.

Even minor things, like the rupee expenditure, day/night system, etc. have changed in SS.

1. I'm not convinced that the meaning and design of dungeons changed much. There are still clearly identifiable dungeons that are distinct from other phases of the gameplay. In the official thread no one was confused what part of the game was at issue when people referred to the Nth dungeon. Their design was pretty similar to what we've had since OoT. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. They were pretty good dungeons (if not as memorable as the later TP ones), but they meant and felt about the same as ever.

2. Overworld progression was genuinely different - far more linear and puzzle-like.

3. Boss fights have had multiple patterns in plenty of Zelda games before SS. Phantom Ganon? Twinrova? They have also been outside of dungeons. TP had multiple encounters with the big Ogre dude out on the overworld.

4. Rupee expenditure to upgrade items was a change, but I think it's a less significant change than people make it out to be. There have always been item upgrades in Zelda. In the original you found secret stores and spent rupees. In OoT and MM you mostly completed mini-games or sidequests. In SS, you collect resources and pay rupees.

5. Day/night system was different, but I'm not exactly sure what it did that wasn't already present in the more expansive versions of the day/night system in OoT/MM/WW/TP. I admit my memory of SS may be failing me here.

 

[Myriadis]

What the fuck are you people asking for at this point?

I will be only satisfied once Zelda turns into a tactical cover-based third person shooter. It's the only way to say that the series has finally changed.

Spoiler

jk, in case you don't get it.
And I definitely know that if Nintendo would change the franchise drastically, we will get another wave of people claiming that they changed too much and now that series is ruined. Look at DMC, even just a new character was enough to get shitstorms.

 

[onilink88]

Point taken.

I'm kinda curious about what your complaints are.

Well, they're different from game to game, and they'll sometimes change as I play newer entries. In WW, for example, the siren song of exploration was stifled by the unappealing overworld design; it was a monotonous and lifeless mass of blue with glorified chunks of rock interspersed throughout. My experience was further soured by the fact that I thought that the dungeons and puzzles, for the most part, were on the blazé side of the spectrum.

*All that said, though, I wouldn't pass that off as an objective assessment of the game, and I don't doubt the legitimacy of the claims of the people who say they don't have a problem in those departments. It just didn't work for me. Don't get me wrong, though, overall, I still had a great time with the game. *

**I apologize for derailing the thread. I promise, I'll stop as of this post.**

 

[CaVaYeRo]

Ugh, isn't it a little too much with the Zelda-only discussion? And I found the answer pretty logical. Miyamoto just went: Zelda gets bigger and bigger > we work more and more with other parties > Retro would be totally possible option with a good idea > but script and design remain in Japan and thus contact is super important > difficult communication > Retro better for less internalized projects.

Here's full quote transcript for that question/answer. Aonuma is pretty close to this kind of supportive studios, he says. I guess it's pretty clear after Grezzo.

I think there are other interesting topics there and I'll share more in English when I can, but luckily some other gaffers have done so already. If any moderator considers it's better to split up this thread so non-Zelda debate stays here, I'm totally fine with it.

 

[ASIS]

1. I'm not convinced that the meaning and design of dungeons changed much. There are still clearly identifiable dungeons that are distinct from other phases of the gameplay. In the official thread no one was confused what part of the game was at issue when people referred to the Nth dungeon. Their design was pretty similar to what we've had since OoT. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. They were pretty good dungeons (if not as memorable as the later TP ones), but they meant and felt about the same as ever.

2. Overworld progression was genuinely different - far more linear and puzzle-like.

3. Boss fights have had multiple patterns in plenty of Zelda games before SS. Phantom Ganon? Twinrova? They have also been outside of dungeons. TP had multiple encounters with the big Ogre dude out on the overworld.

4. Rupee expenditure to upgrade items was a change, but I think it's a less significant change than people make it out to be. There have always been item upgrades in Zelda. In the original you found secret stores and spent rupees. In OoT and MM you mostly completed mini-games or sidequests. In SS, you collect resources and pay rupees.

5. Day/night system was different, but I'm not exactly sure what it did that wasn't already present in the more expansive versions of the day/night system in OoT/MM/WW/TP. I admit my memory of SS may be failing me here.

I'm typing with my phone here so excuse me if you see some spelling mistakes.

1) the dungeons have greatly changed, and the only reason why some people differentiated the sand ship from, say skippers retreated was due to the music that signifies the beginning of a dungeon. Otherwise the structure is strongly similar, some dungeons didn't have boss fights or mini boss fights, some dungeons were designed for multiple encounters (whether it's a good change or a bad one is not what I'm discussing here), NPCs have been seen inside dungeons in an almost regular basis and small keys and puzzle are existent outside of dungeons or even mini-dungeons. The inherent design of the seven major ones is also quite different since it focuses on a MUCH smaller number of rooms but so a lot to do in them. The puzzles are also quite different from what you'd expect from Zelda, such as the utter lack of torch and block puzzles, others that use physics and other designs often alien to the franchise. That's what I meant by change in the structure of dungeons.

3) I honestly didn't know the multiple patterns of those bosses, I always thought it was one. TP had only two mini boss fights outside of the dungeon. That is much more emphasized in SS.

4 and 5 are, as I said, not huge changes but changes nonetheless, so yes you are right on that.

 

[AzaK]

RETRO aren't right for Zelda. I don't know why people rave about it so much. Let them do there own thing.

Retro may or may not be good for Zelda but I want more new stuff from Nintendo, and "western" at that. Therefore, use Retro to make a new "core" IP please.