General Zelda Action or Adventure?

[Locke]

Zelda is usually described as an "action/adventure" series, but which is more important? Do you prefer more frequent and detailed battles, or more exploration, puzzles, and discovery? Feel free to frame your response in how you think they're doing right now, but please try to avoid straw men which can lead us off-topic.

I've always been drawn to Zelda for the adventure, and I'm worried that they're losing their focus on that aspect. Aonuma claims to draw some inspiration from MYST, a series I've loved since before I started playing Zelda, but I don't think this shows enough in the games. Rather than more intricate battles and epic destinations, I think they need to focus on more believable and immersive worlds, deeper puzzles, and more meaningful journeys.

I'm upset when the "difficulty" of a Zelda game is measured by how easy it is to kill enemies or by how much damage they do. Enemies should be a side-show to detailed environments and challenging puzzles. I'd like to be able to measure difficulty based on how often I get lost or stuck, not on how many times I die.

 

[Terminus]

If you have a soley action game, you have something that has no story and just is an extended battle. Adventure, however, lends itself better to a strong story.

 

[DarkLink7]

I like the adventure aspect. It's a way to sort of relax, like in SS and TP, just wandering around, collecting and discovering was fun. I just answered in "Which Zelda Overworld was Best to Explore", and I said that I loved finding all the little random things in the games. All the mini-dungeons and puzzles. It's good because theres fighting sprinkled in, so it's not uber-tedious.

 

[Hanyou]

If you look at the roots of the series, they're both very important. This makes it completely legitimate to criticize a Zelda game for how its action is executed.

However, they are adventure games first and foremost, so it's more important that they get that right.

 

[Edoc'sil]

Allow me to hop on the adventure bandwagon. As previously mentioned, a pure action game comes out like Street Fighter. No storyline at all, just a ton of fighting. Having ample adventure, however, not only creates a good story, but opens many opportunities for battle--and therefore action. Almost all adventure games have action; you can have an action game, though, without any adventure. For that reason, I believe the adventure genre suits the Legend of Zelda franchise much better.

 

[DarkestLink]

Puzzles, I think, are most important, but I don't think exploration is that important. IMO, it's just not something Zelda typically excels at. I think Mario has more potential for it much like Zelda has potential in other aspects (like story) but just hasn't used it except for a few cases like SM64 and, to a lesser extent, SMS.

 

[Djinn]

Honestly I blend both of these descriptions together to the point of there not really being a difference between them whatsoever. Either not totally understanding or not caring enough I just say Action/Adventure together most of the time and when I do use either term alone it really is an either/or situation with them.

Taking a moment to look t the terms and actually thinking about it I would have to say adventure since Zelda does not always follow the action description. At least not since the 3D games came out and greatly upgraded the amount of and types of puzzles. More often a temple will have only a couple enemies in a room and a large puzzle or just a piece of a larger puzzle to solve. The earlier 2D games I would definitely say were action since killing everything in the room you were in was the main goal each time you walked into one and the puzzles were very few and far between. Since OoT that has been reversed. And now Zelda is not much like the other action games out there. It does have a similar combat style to the other 3D hack and slash games but it is definitely not the hack and slash killfest that DMC or Bayonetta is. Those games are clearly action due to the nonstop slaughter of all enemies in all directions until cutscene. Zelda has considerable downtime between combat even within the dungeons.

On top of that Zelda has always had that explore element to it. Normally within the overworld but also within dungeons you gain items that help you climb, jump, swim, crawl, etc in every possible location and even a few you were probably not meant to go in. Lately this seems to have taken precedence over the action aspect of the dungeons. Most often you have a couple enemies to quickly kill then get right to work figuring out how to travel from point A to point B then it is on to the next room and repeat.

 

[JuicieJ]

I don't see how anyone can say that either one is more important than the other. It's all there in the name of the genre -- Action-Adventure. Both need to be fleshed out and stimulating in order for the whole package to be complete.

 

[Random Person]

To me, it's like asking which is more important, story or gameplay? Gameplay is the number one important thing to a game, but story is an extremely close second. Adventure is the most important thing to Zelda games, but actions is also extremely important. I Personally enjoy action more, but I believe to Zelda, adventure is the more important aspect. While both are important, I generally find puzzles and adventuring more memorable experiences. In today's Zelda, generally most of the difficulty comes from the adventuring and the action difficulty takes a back seat. The action part feels like a small break from your adventuring. You're more likely to think "Whoo, okay, I killed that monster, now back to solving this puzzle" than "okay, I've solved this puzzle, now back to killing monsters." Places like the cave of Ordeals demonstrate that the player may be getting enough adventuring throughout the game, but not enough action. If we were back in the original LoZ's time, I would have a difference of opinion.

One way to look at it is this. Having a temple without either action or adventure wouldn't be good, but which example would feel less like a Zelda experience (not which is less fun). A temple with only monsters (much like the Cave of Ordeals) or a temple with only adventuring. (A little like MM's moon corridors, but more difficult since those were meant to be done quickly.)"

 

[Spirit]

I used to think of Zelda as an adventure game but now it feels like more of an action series, too much focus is being put on to what we can do within the game rather than what we can discover. The worlds as of late havent had anyhting worth discovering and nothing feels new nor does it have a sense of awe to it, until those kinds fo things come back i'd say the series was now more of the action genre.

Which is more important to me? the adventure and sense of new discoveries.

 

[Justac00lguy]

Its a hard question as it seems a lot of emphasis is now put on the Action side of the game...

However I will always say Adventure, probably one of my most important features in any game that allows for exploration of somekind. Whether it's about exploring the overworld or looking for collectables or even taking in the atmosphere the world has to offer. This is why I love Twilight Princess it has everything I look for in a game in terms of adventuring...A large overworld, diverse landscapes, amazing soundtrack, gripping atmosphere, amazing scenery and things to do.

 

[misskitten]

I'm all about the adventure, explorations, characters, quests - places to go, things to discover, a storyline to follow. The action plays a part, sure, but if that was what held the most importance to me, I'd probably choose other games to play. Main bosses isn't what gives me a thrill when doing a dungeon, it's more the thrill of working my way through the journey towards the main boss. The main boss is simply a necessity.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

I'm sorry, but I just can't choose between the two, they're equally important to me. When I boot up a Zelda game I look forward equally to the exploration of the worlds and the story & character development that the adventure entails, as well as the fun and challenging fights. Zelda games that over-emphasize one aspect at the detriment of the other seem off to me, and I don't like them as much as those that have the two in perfect or near-perfect balance.

 

[ihateghirahim]

I think what's really lacking is a difficult series of puzzles. Puzzle-solving has been with the series since the first game, but it has lagged in recent games. SS was more shoot this, find this, kill this, and hit this obvious thing. The game lacked puzzles that had any real depth. The only difficulty came from simply not knowing how to get one of the items to work. (That stupid whip gave me a lot of trouble) I miss the old block-pushing from the 2d games. However, I truly miss the water-level puzzle from OoT. Sure, it was hard as hell, but it challenged my problem-solving abilities and forced me to think outside the box. When I beat it after three days (most dungeons take a little over an hour for me), I truly had a sense of accomplishment. SS mainly consisted of simple puzzles placed in a linear order, AND THE ANSWERS WERE ALMOST ALWAYS OBVIOUS! Seriously, there was always some bright object or simple switch to use. The puzzles felt more like something I had to do to get on with the game, instead of challenging puzzles that allow me to use all the knowledge I've gained from playing these games.

 

[Castle]

Agreed, Locke. I have never heard of Aonuma claiming to draw inspiration from MYST, but if that be the case I think we have found a kindred spirit in each other as MYST was my favorite adventure series prior to my introduction to Zelda (and for the longest time indistinguishable in terms of which one was superior).

But the adventure aspects of Zelda is what sets it apart from a straight up action game. Zelda just wouldn't cut it as a button masher hack n' slasher like God of War. Exploration and puzzle solving has always completed the trinity of the Zelda formula. I do agree, the series has been heavy on puzzles but light on adventure in more recent times. Although even the combat aspects have been largely downplayed given the simplicity of the combat in Twilight Princess. Despite the nature of the motion controls in SS, it did manage to put some oomph back into fighting.