-
Introducing NeoGAF Gold
Saving Zelda -an in depth critique of the LoZ series
- Thread starter mikespit1200
- Start date
- 531
I dont want a dark and gritty zelda. I want it to be for everyone like bilbo or a miyasaki movie.
But he is absolutely spot on about most items being simple keys and the crappy overworlds.
Exploration was always the main draw of zelda growing up. Post oot this aspect have been on a continuous decline. just as the series as a whole.
But he is absolutely spot on about most items being simple keys and the crappy overworlds.
Exploration was always the main draw of zelda growing up. Post oot this aspect have been on a continuous decline. just as the series as a whole.
Kids movies have gotten away with worse. I say bring on happy-creepy schizo Zelda!
What really irks me is that he thinks "locks and keys" are bad. Sure, they can feel a little too artificial if they stick out like a sore thumb and the game obsesses over pointing them out to you, but nearly all games are based on locks and keys of various sizes and shapes. Assessing a challenge or obstacle, figuring out how best to get past it, then taking action is one of the fundamental reasons I enjoy games in general. Should I be so totally immersed that I'm not even problem-solving any more?
What really irks me is that he thinks "locks and keys" are bad. Sure, they can feel a little too artificial if they stick out like a sore thumb and the game obsesses over pointing them out to you, but nearly all games are based on locks and keys of various sizes and shapes. Assessing a challenge or obstacle, figuring out how best to get past it, then taking action is one of the fundamental reasons I enjoy games in general. Should I be so totally immersed that I'm not even problem-solving any more?
It just feels so artificial and not incorporated enough game-wide. I would love if the hookshot worked on any plant or wood substance and not just vines...then play with all the implications of Link being super mobile. With the whip in SS, you could get certain items from mobs for upgrading..but rarely used. I wish the items introduced were much more "weighty". The scarab is an example of an item done well...I used that shit constantly.
Narrow the items down to
-Bombs
-Scarab
-Bow and Arrows (and introduce it quickly!)
-Dual claw shot (it can take the place of the need of a whip)
Design the whole world around these items.
Narrow the items down to
-Bombs
-Scarab
-Bow and Arrows (and introduce it quickly!)
-Dual claw shot (it can take the place of the need of a whip)
Design the whole world around these items.
I could dig it. Skyward Sword already went a long way toward cleaning up the way items were used, so what you're describing is the next logical step.
I have one reservation, though: Give me the Deku Leaf or something functionally similar to it. Hell, let me use it with the dual claw shots to zip around like I'm playing Just Cause 2.
I have one reservation, though: Give me the Deku Leaf or something functionally similar to it. Hell, let me use it with the dual claw shots to zip around like I'm playing Just Cause 2.
*sigh*
Seven pages for this stupid whine piece.
This isn't analysis.
Or an interesting criticism.
It falls apart based on comparing a child's view and understanding of games to an adult who has been playing games for a long time. It really only says "Why is this open world not fun to me? Because it's not an open world to me." The next question should be WHY IS THAT, but that's never asked and so no answer is ever found to the author's problem.
The author is likely not even aware what his problem is. He's just guessing at it and writing an embarrassing blog.
Seven pages for this stupid whine piece.
This isn't analysis.
Or an interesting criticism.
It falls apart based on comparing a child's view and understanding of games to an adult who has been playing games for a long time. It really only says "Why is this open world not fun to me? Because it's not an open world to me." The next question should be WHY IS THAT, but that's never asked and so no answer is ever found to the author's problem.
The author is likely not even aware what his problem is. He's just guessing at it and writing an embarrassing blog.
I agree Zelda needs some huge changes to it's core structure - it really, really needs to get that element of exploration back - but this article runs with the idea of overhauling the Zelda formula past the touchdown line of crazy and keeps going. All Zelda really needs is to strip down the focus on item-based "lock and key" puzzles, encourage more exploration, and add more variety in terms of location and enemy encounters. Boom.
Also, bring back the eagles from Zelda II. All will be forgiven.
Also, bring back the eagles from Zelda II. All will be forgiven.
zelda games being gamey is not a problem.
there are tons others though. you can be gamey without being predictable and repetitive. you can also have multiple ways to solve something and still be gamey.
for example, sure collecting heart pieces is gamey.
Zelda games could benefit from making it an incentive to find them as the game progresses because the difficulty increases (zelda 1 or 2).
these can be placed in interesting locations to encourage exploration.
there is no need to remove them altogether.
bad article. and this is coming from a huge zelda critic. (and fan)
the article does have a few valid points. why do bombs only blow up certain rocks? why can i only grapple onto specific targets? why can i only kill an enemy if i do this specific set of actions?
These can be easy addressed tho.
For example, in SotC, each enemy has weakspots that you have to reach to kill them effectively. however, you can reach these weakspots in a variety of ways or hell just keep shooting arrows at it till it dies. i really like that.
there are tons others though. you can be gamey without being predictable and repetitive. you can also have multiple ways to solve something and still be gamey.
for example, sure collecting heart pieces is gamey.
Zelda games could benefit from making it an incentive to find them as the game progresses because the difficulty increases (zelda 1 or 2).
these can be placed in interesting locations to encourage exploration.
there is no need to remove them altogether.
bad article. and this is coming from a huge zelda critic. (and fan)
the article does have a few valid points. why do bombs only blow up certain rocks? why can i only grapple onto specific targets? why can i only kill an enemy if i do this specific set of actions?
These can be easy addressed tho.
For example, in SotC, each enemy has weakspots that you have to reach to kill them effectively. however, you can reach these weakspots in a variety of ways or hell just keep shooting arrows at it till it dies. i really like that.
Critical thinking doesn't mean disguising your jaded stubborness in a long rant about how this series should be something impossible. This guy has no concept on how games are made nor how IP's make money. Like a typical hardcore gamer, he wants everything at once and thinks that he knows how to make it just because he has played longer than you and me.
This paragraph is just all out crap if you have ever followed a friend or relative playing "modern" Zelda games for the first time.
This paragraph is just all out crap if you have ever followed a friend or relative playing "modern" Zelda games for the first time.
Zelda still has plenty of adventure IF you aren't a series veteran (or just hardcore gamer who knows these games from inside out). Zelda doesn't seem to "grow" with the original fanbase and that's fine. Nintendo needs its biggest IP's to create new fans and be accessible to all ages. Zelda is designed to teach you all the basics inside every instance. They don't get more challenging with each iteration.
Also I agree with SotC, it had the best overworld ever for me. I explored every single inch of it. But me and you are exceptions to a rule. For most people it felt empty and unrewarding to explore.
Also I agree with SotC, it had the best overworld ever for me. I explored every single inch of it. But me and you are exceptions to a rule. For most people it felt empty and unrewarding to explore.
The thing is, unless Nintendo invents a time machine making players 12 year old again and erase all their gaming memories, the aspect of exploration as many keep coming back to will never return in any sensible fashion.
What I've experienced is that new gamers love to explore games in general. They take their time figuring out how traversal works and have a good time with it. Even in linear games you have new players trying different stuff and such, when gamers tend to analyze a games structure and then playing accordingly.
Making a game more exploratory for some old jaded gamers who came to realize that they can dissect a game and pinpoint it's gameplay, design and core structure, is pretty much impossible, and frankly would be a disaster due to overspecialized design.
I love how people treat the first Zelda as some sort of universal playground that had limitless options and no clear rules is hilarious. Zelda 1 was as simple as it gets. The Key-Door Interactions were as basic as it gets. Rose tinted glasses and all that. If you think that just because a game won't spell out for you what you have to do, that you suddenly will feel that magical sense of exploration again, you'd be dead wrong.
What I've experienced is that new gamers love to explore games in general. They take their time figuring out how traversal works and have a good time with it. Even in linear games you have new players trying different stuff and such, when gamers tend to analyze a games structure and then playing accordingly.
Making a game more exploratory for some old jaded gamers who came to realize that they can dissect a game and pinpoint it's gameplay, design and core structure, is pretty much impossible, and frankly would be a disaster due to overspecialized design.
I love how people treat the first Zelda as some sort of universal playground that had limitless options and no clear rules is hilarious. Zelda 1 was as simple as it gets. The Key-Door Interactions were as basic as it gets. Rose tinted glasses and all that. If you think that just because a game won't spell out for you what you have to do, that you suddenly will feel that magical sense of exploration again, you'd be dead wrong.
It's always Zelda that is getting stale or needs to be reinvented. There aren't many games like it, while most other games have plenty of clones.
Also, about the exploration in the series. Other than Skyward Sword and the DS games, I think that there is still a decent amount of exploring to do in the games. Sure, it's not like Elder Scrolls, but it's never been like that either.
Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess and Wind Waker still have as much exploration as the 2D games. It's not like the early games were wide open. They also relied on having the correct items to get to certain places in the world.
The only game in the series that had "more" exploration was the first game; and that's only because you weren't told anything whatsoever. It's basically "here take this sword, and now you're on your own". I can't see anyone ever make a game like that again.
Also, about the exploration in the series. Other than Skyward Sword and the DS games, I think that there is still a decent amount of exploring to do in the games. Sure, it's not like Elder Scrolls, but it's never been like that either.
Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess and Wind Waker still have as much exploration as the 2D games. It's not like the early games were wide open. They also relied on having the correct items to get to certain places in the world.
The only game in the series that had "more" exploration was the first game; and that's only because you weren't told anything whatsoever. It's basically "here take this sword, and now you're on your own". I can't see anyone ever make a game like that again.
I don't buy his argument. The series evolved away from those first two games pretty quickly and has since never ventured into that territory. Pretty much all this guy wants is a hard game, which is fine, but it really doesn't make any sense to demand it of a series that hasn't produced games like that for the last 20 years.
If this author is so interested in hard games with obscure secrets, I think he could just as easily move on to games like Dark Souls, which is fantastic at both of these things. Since the author doesn't seem to have much attachment to any consistent elements of zelda games (characters/story, the items, the overworld), I don't see why he wouldn't just move on to another series of games that better satisfy his desires. Basically, I think he just enjoys whining and nostalgia.
If this author is so interested in hard games with obscure secrets, I think he could just as easily move on to games like Dark Souls, which is fantastic at both of these things. Since the author doesn't seem to have much attachment to any consistent elements of zelda games (characters/story, the items, the overworld), I don't see why he wouldn't just move on to another series of games that better satisfy his desires. Basically, I think he just enjoys whining and nostalgia.
Although I find newer Zeldas to be extremely tedious, predictable, padded, and possibly targeted for children with a reading comprehension in the about the 5th grade - I disagree with this guy.
Zelda is fundamentally supposed to be this way because the formula works very well in the context of an adventure type game. It's silly to overgeneralize everything as "locks and keys". Exploration and backtracking is much more than that in these games. It's because of Zelda's formula we have games like Mega Man Legends, Demon's/Dark Souls, and perhaps even modern Metroids. I could be wrong though, I'm no Zelda expert.
Zelda is fundamentally supposed to be this way because the formula works very well in the context of an adventure type game. It's silly to overgeneralize everything as "locks and keys". Exploration and backtracking is much more than that in these games. It's because of Zelda's formula we have games like Mega Man Legends, Demon's/Dark Souls, and perhaps even modern Metroids. I could be wrong though, I'm no Zelda expert.
You know, I was thinking today, Zelda needs to be darker.
And I don't mean grittier, or more 'adult' - I'm talking dark, as in, eery, morbid, disturbing...
Think back to Majora's Mask, and the starting sequence of the game.
You're immediately hit in the face with a large dose of creepy, and it's great. behind all the bright colours and oddities in that game, there lied some really disturbing undertones and moments.
And I don't mean grittier, or more 'adult' - I'm talking dark, as in, eery, morbid, disturbing...
Think back to Majora's Mask, and the starting sequence of the game.
You're immediately hit in the face with a large dose of creepy, and it's great. behind all the bright colours and oddities in that game, there lied some really disturbing undertones and moments.
I've already said something about this on the previous page, but I'll say it again: Dark Souls is not more complex than Zelda - it's the exact opposite, it's extremely simple in comparison. The only thing more complex is the openness of the world and how its areas are interconnected, and that is only possible because the game doesn't have a narrated plot, the same design wouldn't work with Zelda.
But I do agree that Zelda needs to be harder, a lot harder, at the least the combat. All Zeldas from OOT on had ridiculously easy battles, killing bosses doesn't give any sense of accomplishment because they go down after a few hits and do hardly any damage. Skyward Sword is the first game to make a tiny step in the right direction in this regard, but it's still too easy. The problem for Nintendo is that their intended target audience is huge and heterogeneous, they want to get newbies hooked on the series and satisfy series veterans at the same time. That doesn't work because it will always be both too hard and too easy. But there is a very simple solution: different difficulty modes. They could just do a normal mode with and a "veteran mode", if they removed all tutorials, hearts, invincibility potions and so on from the latter, I'd be happy. I don't understand why they haven't done this yet.
But I do agree that Zelda needs to be harder, a lot harder, at the least the combat. All Zeldas from OOT on had ridiculously easy battles, killing bosses doesn't give any sense of accomplishment because they go down after a few hits and do hardly any damage. Skyward Sword is the first game to make a tiny step in the right direction in this regard, but it's still too easy. The problem for Nintendo is that their intended target audience is huge and heterogeneous, they want to get newbies hooked on the series and satisfy series veterans at the same time. That doesn't work because it will always be both too hard and too easy. But there is a very simple solution: different difficulty modes. They could just do a normal mode with and a "veteran mode", if they removed all tutorials, hearts, invincibility potions and so on from the latter, I'd be happy. I don't understand why they haven't done this yet.
So much this.
Also, I think you guys are missing the point of the 'Lock and Key' thing. There is nothing wrong with needing items to access an area, but when the item is reduced to being only that, it takes away from the point of an item. It becomes completely arbitrary. They might as well take out the clawshot and give link a giant key that lets him get into a new area. Leave some freedom to the player. Let them figure out how they want to open the 'lock' with their 'key'.
Also, I think you guys are missing the point of the 'Lock and Key' thing. There is nothing wrong with needing items to access an area, but when the item is reduced to being only that, it takes away from the point of an item. It becomes completely arbitrary. They might as well take out the clawshot and give link a giant key that lets him get into a new area. Leave some freedom to the player. Let them figure out how they want to open the 'lock' with their 'key'.
Even the first Zelda doesn't have as much exploration as some like to claim. You can only complete the first three dungeons in any order, the other 6 all need items from previous dungeons to finish,or "unlock"(hah) them.
Come to think about it, I played a lot of Zelda classic games, which are fan games made on an improved Zelda 1 engine. The quests which are rated the highest all don't allow you to visit any dungeons in order. There is quite a lot of text in most of them and it's clearly stated where you have to go next. On the other hand, the difficulty often reaches Zelda 1 and even surpasses it (Hero Of Dreams,it's surely three times harder) and they love it to put bigger caves and mini-dungeons under stuff like single bushes or trees. I guess a mix of modern zelda elements and classic difficulty / harder to find secrets is the real thing.
Come to think about it, I played a lot of Zelda classic games, which are fan games made on an improved Zelda 1 engine. The quests which are rated the highest all don't allow you to visit any dungeons in order. There is quite a lot of text in most of them and it's clearly stated where you have to go next. On the other hand, the difficulty often reaches Zelda 1 and even surpasses it (Hero Of Dreams,it's surely three times harder) and they love it to put bigger caves and mini-dungeons under stuff like single bushes or trees. I guess a mix of modern zelda elements and classic difficulty / harder to find secrets is the real thing.
The whole game is dark and disturbing. Link ist literally performing euthanasia in it, among other things you see.
I also want the series to go such a route again since then, but when people want the series to be more ,,mature'' they usually talk about generic WRPG artstyle and whatnot, which would be simply unsuitable for the series.
I also want the series to go such a route again since then, but when people want the series to be more ,,mature'' they usually talk about generic WRPG artstyle and whatnot, which would be simply unsuitable for the series.
Judging by the responses in this thread, I expected the article to be a little more misguided than it wound up being. Misguided or volatile, I guess.
He's well-spoken and well-intentioned. The only problem is that he wants Zelda to be something it has not been for many years, ignoring the fact that maybe Zelda is what it wants to be, and what he saw in the first two games was more the product of it's time and limitations than the blueprint the rest of the series was meant to adhere to.
What he wants has to be found elsewhere (Demons and Dark Souls, for example), and maybe that's not the worst thing in the world.
How many gamers have actually completed the original Zeldas? How many could, would, or even have the patience to in our current generation? I don't think modern audiences could handle another game like that, and I think Nintendo would agree with me.
Focus, bumpers, helpful guides- these are concesions made to deliver the Zelda experience to as many gamers as possible. Nintendo has made their intentions clear. I may be looking for a Zelda game like the article describes, but I don't believe for a second that it would be good business for Nintendo to make one.
He's well-spoken and well-intentioned. The only problem is that he wants Zelda to be something it has not been for many years, ignoring the fact that maybe Zelda is what it wants to be, and what he saw in the first two games was more the product of it's time and limitations than the blueprint the rest of the series was meant to adhere to.
What he wants has to be found elsewhere (Demons and Dark Souls, for example), and maybe that's not the worst thing in the world.
How many gamers have actually completed the original Zeldas? How many could, would, or even have the patience to in our current generation? I don't think modern audiences could handle another game like that, and I think Nintendo would agree with me.
Focus, bumpers, helpful guides- these are concesions made to deliver the Zelda experience to as many gamers as possible. Nintendo has made their intentions clear. I may be looking for a Zelda game like the article describes, but I don't believe for a second that it would be good business for Nintendo to make one.
Even there, the raft,meat,the power bracelet and the ladder are items that are only used to reach new areas. The bomb in Zelda I is also only used to reach new areas and bomb some dodongos (and even Skyward Sword has one enemy that was only defeatable through a bomb). All Zeldas have at least one item that just has one purpose, reach new areas, and Zelda 1 is no exception.