Saving Zelda

[JSR]

[for those confused: the following question is rhetorical] Lately the Zelda games have devolved into simple, linear games with no challenge, do you agree so far? Excellent. Then read this magnificent article by Tevis Thompson: http://tevisthompson.com/saving-zelda/

I'm aware that it has a higher word count than what the contemporary youth is comfortable with, but please endure. Enlightenment will be gained.



Edit:

Quotes removed. If you want to comment you need to read the entire effing piece. No jumping to conclusions here and please refrain from dismissing his entire article by a singular generalising sentence.

[nakamura]

Not really. Skyward Sword was a bit handholdy but TP was much less so.

As for common elements, well 25 years into a series and that will become an issue.

[noobish hat]

Sounds like he wants Zelda to be Skyrim. 'Purposeless' is not a word that should be associated with any aspect of anything. Get rid of it.

[JSR]

I enjoy the modern Zelda games too, but I would be lying if I didn't think they could improve with some added exploration and higher difficulty.

[JSR]

Sounds like he wants Zelda to be Skyrim. 'Purposeless' is not a word that should be associated with any aspect of anything. Get rid of it.

He clearly states that he dislikes Skyrim (and Oblivion for that matter), so that conclusion seems very inaccurate.

[nakamura]

All SS needed was Fi not pointing stuff out. Zelda is an action puzzle game. The puzzles may sometimes seem easier for some but we have been playing the franchise for years. For new players, it's just right.

[JSR]

Please refrain from commenting before reading the entire piece, otherwise you risk looking like a fool by writing comments that have already been addressed or even rebutted.

[noobish hat]

Well then he doesn't follow his own logic. He wants Zelda to have "fields of purposeless grandeur (like Shadow of the Colossus), where secrets could be anywhere because they’re not obviously right there"

That's Oblivion and Skyrim to a tee. It's also a complete load of bollocks. The greatest trick Nintendo ever achieved was in designing a Hyrule that looks and FEELS like it has a huge open world like Oblivion, but which is actually meticulously designed, with nothing wasted. Oblivion and Skyrim have no design and no structure. Wind Waker and Twilight Princess were both criticised for having this structureless, aimless layout. Making Zelda MORE like that is going to make it worse, not better.

[JSR]

Please read entire article before making assumptions about what he wants or not. Even if he has articulated himself poorly on that single point, I would hope that you would get more out of the essay than simply finding a case where he stumbles.

[noobish hat]

He doesn't have a case because it's not possible to make a better Zelda than Ocarina of Time. It's like Da Vinci constantly trying to make a better version of the Mona Lisa. It's a masterpiece. Don't touch it!

[nakamura]

I'm merely answering your opening question Alex.

[noobish hat]

I don't think Tevis is a real name, so I'm not reading it.

[JSR]

He doesn't have a case because it's not possible to make a better Zelda than Ocarina of Time. It's like Da Vinci constantly trying to make a better version of the Mona Lisa. It's a masterpiece. Don't touch it!

By that statement you're already contradicting yourself, as you agree with him in that the Zelda games have gotten progressively worse over time. With Skyward Sword being the current worst one. But please refrain from posting in here before you've read his entire essay, his efforts deserve that much respect.

[noobish hat]

I categorically deny that Zelda games have gotten worse over time. The time/goodness graph of Zelda is quite random. Zelda 2 and Skyward Sword are the worst. Twilight Princess is better than Wind Waker. So what you said isn't true.

Also, the writer is a tumbling, tumbling moron. He's basically saying that Zelda 1 = Zelda. Everything else = not Zelda.

There were TONNES of Famicom games designed in the same way as the original Zelda. They did it on purpose. Do you know how many issues of Nintendo Power they sold because the games offered no clues whatsoever? That's not good design, that's fleecing your customers in an age when they have no recourse but to call your hotline. In Japan there was (and still is) a booming business in strategy guides. The original Zelda is pretty much unplayable if you don't have a guide. Or maybe you could spend 10 years bombing every square inch of the map to find the one arbitrary spot you need to gain entry to a dungeon? Because that's what Zelda should be all about, right? No, that's what the FAMICOM was all about.

[JSR]

Yeah, I'm done.