The sad state of the Zelda series

[t3stm4ster]

Without a doubt, Zelda 1-4 are classics: set-in-stone wonders that can never be defaced or undervalued. Zelda 5 was obviously the peak of Zelda. Phenomenal storyline coupled with amazing graphics: alas, that will never happen again.

Majora's Mask was a disappointment. Another attempt by Nintendo to expand Zelda's storyline by creating another land with a messed up villain. This was obviously a hastily-released game whose only goal was to absorb and bask in the glory of Ocarina of Time, which it failed to do. The ONLY good thing this game had going for it was the spectacular dungeon design: the only quality to surpass Ocarina of Time. But the end of the game comes up much too fast, after only four dungeons, the climax happens. Disappointing.

The two GBA Zeldas (Seasons and Ages) were a complete flop. Rushed and ill-marketed, these two games were without a doubt an attempt to establish a well-known and popular game franchise on a newly-introduced system, thereby having Zelda being a large factor in the success (or lack of) of Gameboy Advance. But it's nothing but a money drain, and these two games bombed.

So comes along gamecube, and with a series of Zelda failures behind it, you can hardly expect the ground-breaking success that Ocarina of Time enjoyed. To further my point, Nintendo made the worst mistake by showing everyone a sneak peak of upcoming gamecube games at Spaceworld long ago. Included in this was the famous 10-second-long duel between Link and Ganondorf. So we are obviously shown the capabilities of gamecube, and therefore this short clip has increased the hype of the next Zelda game immensely.

Nintendo disappoints yet again, with Zelda's shocking new look. I can't imagine why they decided to make Link look like this: a cartoony little 8-year old. Ok, so they say they're "using cel-shading to create this look, etc." I have no problem with this, except that they're doing this with a Zelda game. This is not the kind of advance in technology that a Zelda game should show for itself.
I personally am so ashamed of this Zelda game that I refuse to acknowledge it as one of the series, along with Seasons, Ages, and to an extent Majora's Mask.

Why does Nintendo feel it better to constantly make Link a little child? A full-length game with a 17-year-old Link with the Spaceworld's demo graphics would be so unbelievable it would certainly break Ocarina of Time's precedence.

Miyamoto's and Nintendo's ideas for Zelda since Majora's Mask have caused me to stop liking the series altogether, and only the classics can bring me back.

I consider storyline to be more important than graphics and/or gameplay, but I believe the game should at least appeal visually to fans, and if it doesn't do that, then good gameplay is all for naught if they decide not to buy it on account of its unattractive-ness.

People always say that graphics don't matter, it's the story and gameplay, but deep down, people are affected by their visual first impressions and will base at least part of their opinion on that first impression, consciously or otherwise.

I welcome replies and I really would like to know seriously why Nintendo decided to take this terrible new direction for Zelda. I appreciate your time.

[Chibisuke Chan89]

I usually don't go for posting in the Zelda boards, but you've got some stuff here I'd care to disagree with.  I won't disagree that Zelda games hit their peak long ago, and recent renditions have failed to reach previous standards, but I find your specific points to be flawed.

Majora's Mask was a disappointment. Another attempt by Nintendo to expand Zelda's storyline by creating another land with a messed up villain. This was obviously a hastily-released game whose only goal was to absorb and bask in the glory of Ocarina of Time, which it failed to do. The ONLY good thing this game had going for it was the spectacular dungeon design: the only quality to surpass Ocarina of Time. But the end of the game comes up much too fast, after only four dungeons, the climax happens. Disappointing.

Far be it from me to tell you you're wrong for not liking a game, but I don't think you're giving MM nearly enough credit.  Yes, it was a quickly released game that did very little to alter or improve the OoT engine, and yes, there are only four dungeons, but what about all that other stuff?  You mention its superior dungeon design over OoT, but you forget its compelling NPC interaction, and ridiculously in-depth sidequests.  It's short, yes, but in my opinion, even better than OoT while it lasted.

The two GBA Zeldas (Seasons and Ages) were a complete flop. Rushed and ill-marketed, these two games were without a doubt an attempt to establish a well-known and popular game franchise on a newly-introduced system, thereby having Zelda being a large factor in the success (or lack of) of Gameboy Advance. But it's nothing but a money drain, and these two games bombed.

Personally, I'd agree that OoS/OoA were disappointments, especially after LA, but I really don't think that they were created in a simple sell-out just to move GBAs.  Mostly because they were released for GBC, not GBA.

Nintendo disappoints yet again, with Zelda's shocking new look. I can't imagine why they decided to make Link look like this: a cartoony little 8-year old. Ok, so they say they're "using cel-shading to create this look, etc." I have no problem with this, except that they're doing this with a Zelda game. This is not the kind of advance in technology that a Zelda game should show for itself.
I personally am so ashamed of this Zelda game that I refuse to acknowledge it as one of the series, along with Seasons, Ages, and to an extent Majora's Mask.

I find it easier to disregard WW for it's repetitive sailing sections, that annoying Triforce collecting quest, general lack of dungeons, and the lack of other sidequests to make up for the lack of dungeons.  The cel-shading was different, sure, but not what make it sub-par.

A full-length game with a 17-year-old Link with the Spaceworld's demo graphics would be so unbelievable it would certainly break Ocarina of Time's precedence.

So how do you feel about Twilight Princess, then?  It's a full game, with teenage Link, and with graphics probably superior to what was seen in the Spaceworld demo.  You seem to have left that one out.

I consider storyline to be more important than graphics and/or gameplay, but I believe the game should at least appeal visually to fans, and if it doesn't do that, then good gameplay is all for naught if they decide not to buy it on account of its unattractive-ness.

If you're going to put storyline first, than there are many games you need to be playing rather than Zelda.

I welcome replies and I really would like to know seriously why Nintendo decided to take this terrible new direction for Zelda. I appreciate your time.

I don't think it's that Nintendo has taken some radical new direction that's made Zelda bad, it's more that they're trying to ride on the success of OoT, and please fans by recreating the same game over and over again.  All Zelda games since OoT have been more of the same, with relatively few minor changes here and there.  What they really need to do to make the next Zelda another classic is to find some way to radically change things, while still keeping the general Zelda feel and atmosphere to keep the fans satisfied.

[Be_yourself]

Without a doubt, Zelda 1-4 are classics: set-in-stone wonders that can never be defaced or undervalued. Zelda 5 was obviously the peak of Zelda. Phenomenal storyline coupled with amazing graphics: alas, that will never happen again.

Majora's Mask was a disappointment. Another attempt by Nintendo to expand Zelda's storyline by creating another land with a messed up villain. This was obviously a hastily-released game whose only goal was to absorb and bask in the glory of Ocarina of Time, which it failed to do. The ONLY good thing this game had going for it was the spectacular dungeon design: the only quality to surpass Ocarina of Time. But the end of the game comes up much too fast, after only four dungeons, the climax happens. Disappointing.

I agree that Ocarina was fantastic, but  i beg you to give MM another go, it was, in a way a throwaway game created for money, but it was very original it didn't follow the now repeditive Ganon/Triforce formula(i think half the reason that formula is so tired is because OOT did it so well and the recent attempts have been rather pale) it had indepth characters and an even more livley world then Ocarina's.

The two GBA Zeldas (Seasons and Ages) were a complete flop. Rushed and ill-marketed, these two games were without a doubt an attempt to establish a well-known and popular game franchise on a newly-introduced system, thereby having Zelda being a large factor in the success (or lack of) of Gameboy Advance. But it's nothing but a money drain, and these two games bombed.

I have played OOS and i have to say, whilst the stories were rather weak the parts of the game i played were actually quite strong, there was much exploring and difficult puzzle solving and very little clues but you could still talk to NPCs and get relevant comments, which is what i like, i think they are underated

So comes along gamecube, and with a series of Zelda failures behind it, you can hardly expect the ground-breaking success that Ocarina of Time enjoyed. To further my point, Nintendo made the worst mistake by showing everyone a sneak peak of upcoming gamecube games at Spaceworld long ago. Included in this was the famous 10-second-long duel between Link and Ganondorf. So we are obviously shown the capabilities of gamecube, and therefore this short clip has increased the hype of the next Zelda game immensely.

Nintendo disappoints yet again, with Zelda's shocking new look. I can't imagine why they decided to make Link look like this: a cartoony little 8-year old. Ok, so they say they're "using cel-shading to create this look, etc." I have no problem with this, except that they're doing this with a Zelda game. This is not the kind of advance in technology that a Zelda game should show for itself.
I personally am so ashamed of this Zelda game that I refuse to acknowledge it as one of the series, along with Seasons, Ages, and to an extent Majora's Mask.

Why does Nintendo feel it better to constantly make Link a little child? A full-length game with a 17-year-old Link with the Spaceworld's demo graphics would be so unbelievable it would certainly break Ocarina of Time's precedence.

Miyamoto's and Nintendo's ideas for Zelda since Majora's Mask have caused me to stop liking the series altogether, and only the classics can bring me back.

I consider storyline to be more important than graphics and/or gameplay, but I believe the game should at least appeal visually to fans, and if it doesn't do that, then good gameplay is all for naught if they decide not to buy it on account of its unattractive-ness.

People always say that graphics don't matter, it's the story and gameplay, but deep down, people are affected by their visual first impressions and will base at least part of their opinion on that first impression, consciously or otherwise.

I welcome replies and I really would like to know seriously why Nintendo decided to take this terrible new direction for Zelda. I appreciate your time.

Well the cartoony graphics are in the past now, with TP and hopefully the next Zelda using the more realistic graphics style, i always reckon that graphics are the icing on the cake, its nice to have good graphics, in fact it can take the game to a whole new level or down a notch but the gameplay is where it matters, then the story.  Whilst i am not a big fan of TWW's graphics style i would say that some of the gameplay choices in there like the huge sea and cumbersome sailing, the easy bosses and puzzles were the real problems(it also had some high points).  TP had nicer graphics but the reason i am starting to feel it was better then TWW is more to do with the lack of sea although, there isn't anything to find whilst there was plenty in TWW.

So i agree Zelda is in a sad state, but it has more to do with the way Nintendo is trying to attract Casual gamers to what was once a hardcore/difficult game.

[Uber_Challenger]

As usual, I feel the downfall of games like TP and TWW wasn't in the gameplay (awesome gameplay in both of them), but in the difficulty (or sheer lack of difficulty depending on how you look at it).

I almost want to be frustrated by future Zelda games...not in a bad way like I was with OOT's Water Temple or TP's City in the Sky, but in more of an appreciative way.

I hate to say it, but although they weren't my favorite games, the Oracle Games felt like they were the perfect difficulty level for me. They made me think "Wow this boss is pretty tough...cool" rather than "MAN I HATE THIS DUNGEON". I really miss that a lot.

[Be_yourself]

As usual, I feel the downfall of games like TP and TWW wasn't in the gameplay (awesome gameplay in both of them), but in the difficulty (or sheer lack of difficulty depending on how you look at it).

I almost want to be frustrated by future Zelda games...not in a bad way like I was with OOT's Water Temple or TP's City in the Sky, but in more of an appreciative way.

I hate to say it, but although they weren't my favorite games, the Oracle Games felt like they were the perfect difficulty level for me. They made me think "Wow this boss is pretty tough...cool" rather than "MAN I HATE THIS DUNGEON". I really miss that a lot.

Yes, i agree with that Oracle difficulty comment, they weren't the best games, but the difficulty, and the way they made difficulty so that you had to find things on your own and search little nooks and crannies and you could find places that you weren't equipped for yet was what made me like it, TWW did do that a bit too.

And i would argue about the TP/TWW gameplay thing but only on semantics because difficulty is part of the gameplay.

also

What are you defining difficulty as?

[Uber_Challenger]

What are you defining difficulty as?

Difficulty is a hard thing to define, as it depends on who is playing a lot of the time. For example, someone who excels at defeating bosses, dodging attacks, and has superhuman reflexes might be completely confounded when trying to figure out a simple puzzle, and vice versa.

For me, difficulty is something that, when I am playing a game, keeps me on the edge of my seat. If a boss is difficult and I defeat it, it will make me feel proud or relieved as opposed to an easy boss where I defeat it effortlessly and think "That was it?!". And if a puzzle or figuring out where to go next is difficult, as long as I don't use a guide for help, I feel a sense of accomplishment, whereas easy dungeons, puzzles, and spoon-fed directions get stale to me past a certain point in the game.

To put it simply, I'm defining difficulty as something that challenges you and forces you to use your common sense and intellect without making you TOO crazy.

[Be_yourself]

ok yeah, that makes sense, but what sort of difficulty do you want? one thing that annoyed me about TP was the difficulty(of which there was very little) was mostly in boss battles or fights, in the overworld there was no difficulty there was only one series of events which you were shunted through by the characters or Midna, the only time the game engaged you was when you had to do things like defeat Bublin, otherwise it was go here and do this etc.

 TWW did it at times, but sometimes it was exactly the opposite eg: hunting down cyclos, getting the fire and ice arrows. In that part of the game you could mix and match the orders of some of the things but the sea got in the way and made it tedious, if that type of gameplay had been put into TP, where the world was so traversable it would have been much better because it would have engaged you and kept you engaged instead of either
A: being brainless and letting you run from event to event so that you could witness the story inbetween the dungeon
B: sail around for ages merely to find you have found a false lead or gone the wrong way and have to go back...

Thats what i'm getting at but its compleatly off topic...sorry i am rambling at the moment...make what sense you can of this

[Glyphic Facade]

Majora's Mask was a disappointment. Another attempt by Nintendo to expand Zelda's storyline by creating another land with a messed up villain.

So what you're saying is that you wanted Majora's Mask to be exactly like Ocarina? That kind of thinking is just plain stupid. Don't you guys ever get tired of Hyrule?! And Ganon?! JEEZ! The things in Ocarina of Time is what makes it special. The things in Majora's Mask is what makes that game special and not a virtual copy of Ocarina. Can Nintendo ever try anything new in terms of story and appeal without you barking at them?
I don't think I need to explain anymore on how stupid your argument is due to the only reason you hate this game is for the story and villain.

The two GBA Zeldas (Seasons and Ages) were a complete flop. Rushed and ill-marketed. But it's nothing but a money drain, and these two games bombed.

Once again, you are dead wrong. RUSHED?!! If you want to complain about a zelda game that was rushed and ill-marketed with a cheap gimmick.........then please give the spotlight to Four Swords Adventures for the GameCube. But seriously, I have never in my life seen someone who has such a hatred for The Oracle games. Those games are GEMS!! I haven't played Seasons, but I do own Ages........and that game is anything from easy or rushed. And the fact that you stated that these games bombed only further proves how inaccurate you are. They've sold over 3 million copies in total..............yeah thats a MAJOR FLOP RIGHT?!!!

Why does Nintendo feel it better to constantly make Link a little child?

That I kind of agree with you on.

A full-length game with a 17-year-old Link with the Spaceworld's demo graphics would be so unbelievable it would certainly break Ocarina of Time's precedence.

So I guess realistic graphics is the only thing that matters in a zelda game. If that's true then Twilight Princess is the best zelda game ever.

I consider storyline to be more important than graphics and/or gameplay

Story > gameplay???! HELL NO!!

I'm also surprised you didn't mention the Four Swords games, Minish Cap, TP, or Zelda II.

[Witless]

Majora's Mask was a disappointment. Another attempt by Nintendo to expand Zelda's storyline by creating another land with a messed up villain. This was obviously a hastily-released game whose only goal was to absorb and bask in the glory of Ocarina of Time, which it failed to do. The ONLY good thing this game had going for it was the spectacular dungeon design: the only quality to surpass Ocarina of Time. But the end of the game comes up much too fast, after only four dungeons, the climax happens. Disappointing.

You're forgetting an important thing that most people tend to forget. The 3 Day-system. Basically, you had to do one side quest per 3 days if you wanted to succeed ( with a few exceptions ). That's what made MM also great and refreshing.

To further my point, Nintendo made the worst mistake by showing everyone a sneak peak of upcoming gamecube games at Spaceworld long ago. Included in this was the famous 10-second-long duel between Link and Ganondorf. So we are obviously shown the capabilities of gamecube, and therefore this short clip has increased the hype of the next Zelda game immensely.

It was just a showcase for the GCN's power. Anyway, GCN got TP so I don't really see what the problem is.

Nintendo disappoints yet again, with Zelda's shocking new look. I can't imagine why they decided to make Link look like this: a cartoony little 8-year old.

You have to appreciate the look. I personally think it looks great and really adds to the fun of the game as everything is very dynamic and cute.

Also, I believe Miyamoto saying that the 8 year old link, is the Link they originally intended him to be.

[Fairy penguin]

If you hate the other nine games, why are you here? Many people here are fans of the majority of the series, not just the 1st five. You know graphics don't make a game? Thats why you're saying you hate TWW, when that was great game. Going through MM without going for sidequests just takes away from it entirely. You don't even know the series beyond 2003 (while forgeting FS). While LA is better than OoX, that in no way makes them bad. That seems to be the way you're basing your reviews. If its not better in every way than the last, its inferior. Play the games without that assumption and accept that they don't all copy OoT, then come back.

[mikecamper]

I'm  somewhat with you on the "current state" of the series, but I feel "stagnating" to be a more appropriate term than "sad."

What's bugging me about your post, however, is the self-contradictions contained within.   So you hold the first five games (from "Legend of Zelda" all the way through "Ocarina of Time") to be milestones, basically.   (And I agree.)  If you do feel this way, however,  then how can you go on to argue that storyline is more important than gameplay?   

What was it about that original 1987 NES title that swept us off our feet?   Surely you don't think it was the story?   That game didn't really HAVE a story,  other than the backstory described in the manual and the game intro.  But that's it!   After that, it's a simple matter of finding your way around this large, convoluted world.  And it was the first time ever in gaming that a completely free-roaming, open-ended world had been presented to us.   Where to go next was completely up to you.   That is why it was a revolutionary video game.   Not because it spun some kind of fascinating yarn.   And so, the unique gameplay is what has set the franchise apart from other games for as long as it's existed.   They are geared towards the gamer who likes to explore; to be in tune to their environment, even if it means searching  every nook and cranny for secrets and surprises.   They allow for a feeling of connection to an entire fictional world after all is said and done.   I think I speak for a few people on here when I say that--if there is something missing from Zelda these days--it's the  exploratory factor.   (Myself,  I've actually noticed this to be the case ever since Zelda went 3-D.)
 
My next point is admittedly more opinion than that last point.   But I'm sitting here thinking that if story is indeed so important to you,  well..   I actually feel the storylines have  gotten better with the last two major titles, "The Windwaker" and "Twilight Princess."      (And I define major titles as those on large consoles, as opposed to handheld systems.)    Why then,  do you like the series less now?  Explain, please.

Understand, however,  that "story" and "plot" are two different things.   "Story" defines the basic gist of what something's about, wheareas "plot" entails the actual series of events that unfold throughout.   I go through the trouble of spelling this mainly in case somebody decides to come along and take issue with me  on saying the recent games have better stories.      While I DO think "TP" has a better story than the rather cliche one of, say, "OOT,"  I do agree that the in-game events of "OOT" unfold in a more balanced fashion than they do in "Twilight Princess."  As a result,  even though "TP"'s main quest is longer than "Ocarina"'s,   "Ocarina" still feels more complete and epic. 

Anyway, I digress.   (Longest first post ever?   Lol!)    Only  point I'm really trying to make is,   while your opinion deserves to be heard as much as the next guy's,   I feel you may wanna sit and reconsider and get a better grasp on what precisely it is about Zelda that made you love it in the first place before you state the reasons you stated in this post for why it is not the grand series it once was.
 
 

[Poewarrior]

I'm  somewhat with you on the "current state" of the series, but I feel "stagnating" to be a more appropriate term than "sad."

What's bugging me about your post, however, is the self-contradictions contained within.   So you hold the first five games (from "Legend of Zelda" all the way through "Ocarina of Time") to be milestones, basically.   (And I agree.)  If you do feel this way, however,  then how can you go on to argue that storyline is more important than gameplay?   

What was it about that original 1987 NES title that swept us off our feet?   Surely you don't think it was the story?   That game didn't really HAVE a story,  other than the backstory described in the manual and the game intro.  But that's it!   After that, it's a simple matter of finding your way around this large, convoluted world.  And it was the first time ever in gaming that a completely free-roaming, open-ended world had been presented to us.   Where to go next was completely up to you.   That is why it was a revolutionary video game.   Not because it spun some kind of fascinating yarn.   And so, the unique gameplay is what has set the franchise apart from other games for as long as it's existed.   They are geared towards the gamer who likes to explore; to be in tune to their environment, even if it means searching  every nook and cranny for secrets and surprises.   They allow for a feeling of connection to an entire fictional world after all is said and done.   I think I speak for a few people on here when I say that--if there is something missing from Zelda these days--it's the  exploratory factor.   (Myself,  I've actually noticed this to be the case ever since Zelda went 3-D.)
 
My next point is admittedly more opinion than that last point.   But I'm sitting here thinking that if story is indeed so important to you,  well..   I actually feel the storylines have  gotten better with the last two major titles, "The Windwaker" and "Twilight Princess."      (And I define major titles as those on large consoles, as opposed to handheld systems.)    Why then,  do you like the series less now?  Explain, please.

Understand, however,  that "story" and "plot" are two different things.   "Story" defines the basic gist of what something's about, wheareas "plot" entails the actual series of events that unfold throughout.   I go through the trouble of spelling this mainly in case somebody decides to come along and take issue with me  on saying the recent games have better stories.      While I DO think "TP" has a better story than the rather cliche one of, say, "OOT,"  I do agree that the in-game events of "OOT" unfold in a more balanced fashion than they do in "Twilight Princess."  As a result,  even though "TP"'s main quest is longer than "Ocarina"'s,   "Ocarina" still feels more complete and epic. 

Anyway, I digress.   (Longest first post ever?   Lol!)    Only  point I'm really trying to make is,   while your opinion deserves to be heard as much as the next guy's,   I feel you may wanna sit and reconsider and get a better grasp on what precisely it is about Zelda that made you love it in the first place before you state the reasons you stated in this post for why it is not the grand series it once was.
 
 

I totally agree with you about the exploring aspect of the games.  OOT, MM and WW all retained it to an extent (not as much as the early 2-D Zeldas though) and then Twilight Princess came and totally eliminated it >.<  I think the next Zelda game in development would do well to take some lessons from the pre-OOT era of Zelda and then go in a different direction than Zelda has been going since the N64 days.

[Be_yourself]

blah blah blah etc.

I agree too, i think you summed it up well, good post.

[Faceless]

blah blah blah etc.

I agree too, i think you summed it up well, good post.

Meanwhile I think "blah blah blah etc." has more value than his post.

[Grim Jr.]

That's borderline flaming, be careful Faceless.

[Be_yourself]

Wha? whats wrong with camper's post? all he did was explain that the original post was inconsistent, and he explained himself well?

[MMbeaver]

I consider storyline to be more important than graphics and/or gameplay

that would mean you hate Zelda 1 and 2 as they had almost no story whatsoever o and the oracle games are on the GBC not the GBA.

[Faceless]

I was actually talking about the first post.
Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.

[mikecamper]

[quote from Poewarrior]
 
I totally agree with you about the exploring aspect of the games.  OOT, MM and WW all retained it to an extent (not as much as the early 2-D Zeldas though) and then Twilight Princess came and totally eliminated it >.<  I think the next Zelda game in development would do well to take some lessons from the pre-OOT era of Zelda and then go in a different direction than Zelda has been going since the N64 days.
[/quote]


"Twilight Princess" didn't just TOTALLY eliminate exploring.  The golden bug and ghost hunts were reasonably challenging, meticulous, and time-consuming.   Granted, some of the other stuff like secret caves and grottos were more rare,  if not too obvious at times.   Overall..  definitely less than any Zelda game prior.

[Be_yourself]

TP actually had some good exploring aspects, there were LOTS of little nooks and crannies,  the problems were,

A: 90% were in Hyrule field or Lake Hylia, leaving the rest of the world to be empty.

B: there wasn't really any NPC interaction or quests involving exploration, other then fetch quests.

C:you only really found chests of Heart pieces or money, no puzzles or suprising rewards or quests.

PS
oh cool Faceless, i that case i actually agree with you...