Silent_Ocarina
Member
The introductions might be lengthy in recent Zelda games, but the games hardly force you to "wander aimlessly." Whether or not you enjoy the tasks the games give you is another question entirely. I'm not sure why door-opening animations count against Zelda games for being derivative of Ocarina of Time. They're just doors.Alright, I'll try to enumerate.
The mechanics and progression were still largely slavish reiterations of what came before. You still have a boring sequence where the game pens you in at the beginning forces you to wander around aimlessly before making you find a sword (except it's way, way longer this time). You still have the same slow, archaic text prompts and canned animations for doors and items.
Can you give me an example of a modern combat system? You might not have enjoyed Skyward Sword's combat, but again, it isn't some stock system taken from Ocarina of Time. Also, you can fake out the enemies. They follow your sword. You can run up the shields of Moblins. You have to vary your approach on Skulltulas if they're on the ground as opposed to hanging on a web. I do agree about the overly defensive nature of enemies in Skyward Sword, but once again, this isn't something simply lifted from Ocarina of Time.The enemies still mill about and wait for you to take them on singly and they mostly take about 3 hits each. These enemies don't really ever fight you in intelligent ways. They just have a little machine dance they do, where they have a specific moment when they give you a prescribed opening to attack them. And they'll hold that opening until the moment when you attack. Otherwise their guard is perfect. They don't have any AI to speak of, just a dance routine. There's no way to fake them out, overpower their guard, outmaneuver them, or anything else you'd expect in a modern combat system. Just the same basic dance they've been using since Ocarina.
You forgot to mention the bit where every dungeon is absolutely different from Ocarina of Time. I honestly don't understand why you even mentioned doors and keys. Those are series staples. It's like claiming Zelda games are all the same because you have a sword. Or something like that. I also don't remember many, if any, push-the-block puzzles and torch lighting puzzles. I actually just remembered two block puzzles as I'm typing this, and only one involved using it to weigh down a switch. Controlling the water height doesn't make Ancient Cistern a clone of the Water Temple. It's more focused, in my opinion, onThe way in which you progress through the dungeons is still largely the same, with the same key and door, push this thing, light this torch style puzzles. You've got one dungeon where you control the height of water to get around.
the rising and falling center statue and using a thread to climb out if a metaphorical Hell. I also don't recall Time Stones in Ocarina of Time.
In Skyward Sword, at least, items were still useful outside of their dungeons. Also, the Beetle could carry bombs. This led to puzzles that's Hookshot couldn't accomplish.You still get almost all your tools from dungeons and don't really use them outside of the place you find them. (The beetle was neat, but in terms of puzzles was often just a more obtuse hook shot.)
Did you want Zelda to be a more hack-and-slash game? Bosses have patterns, and you must figure out those patterns. I can definitely see where you're coming from with bosses similar to King Dodongo, but claiming that every boss does the same little dance is a bit unfair. The game doesn't just decide to make them fall. You have to figure out how to make them vulnerable. I could use basic terms to describe most bosses in video game history as well.The bosses, like the normal enemies, are still these amusement park rides that you do a little dance with until the game decides that now the boss will fall down and you can wail on them until you get three free hits, at which point they're invincible and will rise up to repeat the dance two more times.
Most games feature loading times between areas. It has nothing to do with being similar to Ocarina of Time. In fact, Skyward Sword did away with the Hyrule Field hub in favor of more closed areas (which I personally didn't enjoy). What would you have enemies do? One enemy relieves itself on your head. Shooting an arrow gives away your position. Throwing a bomb makes them run away from it. You can sprinkle some sort of fungal powder on them if you wish.You still interact with the world and enemies in basically the same mechanical, physics free way you did back in 1998. The world itself is obviously self-contained little boxes with loading gates rather than a large, immersive land to roam. The items and creatures you find inside are all strictly static and can be interacted with in one single, mechanical way. It doesn't feel organic enough for a game that came out just a year ago. I suppose a lot of that is just the technology they had to work with. But that's a flaw in Nintendo's approach. Skyward Sword is very polished in some ways, but the game's design is just new skin on the very same bones they've been using since 1998. The gimmicks are just gimmicks rather than true advancements to the core of the game.
I'm convinced that there's nothing Nintendo can do to Zelda to avoid the "it's more of the same" argument bar the most extreme scenarios (like setting the story in the future).