Definitive Zelda Formula: Old vs. New?

[Castle]

Ok you just lost me there with the links Awakening artwork. LA is arguably the most toon-like game in the series

If it's the photographs you're talking about, then yes. But like with every other early game before OoT you have to use a lot of imagination to visualize the look of things. Otherwise all you have to go off of is concept and promotional art, a lot of which varies in style.

LA more than any of the early games can appear so toony because of the Gameboy's display technology having to have elements of every scene compacted on screen. It's what gives its visuals their squat chibi feel. It's a good way to present graphics on such a tiny package. The Oracle games are the same way.

You can also get more fidelity out of static images - such as the photographs - on low fidelity hardware. For the same reason why, for instance, cartoon characters are frequently drawn with four fingers or "mittens" because it requires too much detail to draw individual, realistically proportioned fingers. If you tried to display any of those images I linked in my previous post on the Gameboy, they'd show up as a garbled mess. But with a lot of space between simple lines like what gives cartoons their exaggerated appearance, it shows up better.

The Zelda series has always been cartoon like. Ever since the very first entry. I mean just take a look at the concept art

Yes. Simple uncolored conceptual line drawings of basically realistically proportioned characters are full toon. /sarc

That might have been what Miamoto had in mind with his concept drawings (or that may just be his way of drawing), but there is a lot of discrepancy between various concept art (from different sources), the game's graphics and the promotional art used in manuals and magazines and stuff, and player's imaginations.

Zelda was never meant to be realistic. I mean for Pete’s sake this is a game where you can pull a monsters eye out with a spring-loaded grappling hook only to blow it up with a remote control mouse.

Who's arguing for 100% "realism" in this thread?

Proponents of the toon style are so obsessed and triggered by the word "realism."

I should also point out that "real" is not the same as "gritty." Unless you live in the hood or the wilderness somewhere, reality isn't terribly gritty.

Video games are supposed to take us out of reality

Games that look like a child's finger paint pull me out of the game and dump me back in reality.

If realism is what you’re looking for than you might as well stop playing video games.

Careful not to cut yourself on that edge, killer.

LttP and OoT you have a bit stronger of an argument, as they’re certainly more “realistic” than Zelda 1

LttP's promotional art didn't go hyper toon, but the game's graphics always looked rather stylized to me. A bright color pallet and somewhat stylized texturing in the pixel art in places always appeared a tad exaggerated which didn't jive with the artwork in the manuals.

On a side note, Okami is a perfect example of how to do cel-shading right. There is no comparison between Waker, Sword, BotW and Okami. The Zelda games look like amateurs compared to Okami's graphics. Ninty just doesn't put much effort into utilizing the technique.

I still couldn't advocate for the Zelda series using the cel-shade technique, even if ninty was as proficient as Clover was with Okami. Because the style that emulated and supported the calligraphy theme with Okami doesn't work for Zelda. Not for me, anyway. Personally, I just can't get invested in a story and a world that isn't taking its appearance seriously. Even Okami realized this which is why the story and characters are largely played for laughs, while Zelda games try to be all serious and dramatic when their tone isn't swinging wildly to quirky and bizarre and back again.

In general, the Zelda series' tone is all over the map graphically, thematically. The structure and gameplay varies wildly from game to game... the series up to Majora was more or less cohesive in all respects. But since then it's been this sporadic mess of tone, narrative, gameplay and visual styles. I pretty much stopped caring to keep up with it all a long time ago.

 

[Seadragon]

If it's the photographs you're talking about, then yes. But like with every other early game before OoT you have to use a lot of imagination to visualize the look of things. Otherwise all you have to go off of is concept and promotional art, a lot of which varies in style.

LA more than any of the early games can appear so toony because of the Gameboy's display technology having to have elements of every scene compacted on screen. It's what gives its visuals their squat chibi feel. It's a good way to present graphics on such a tiny package. The Oracle games are the same way.

You can also get more fidelity out of static images - such as the photographs - on low fidelity hardware. For the same reason why, for instance, cartoon characters are frequently drawn with four fingers or "mittens" because it requires too much detail to draw individual, realistically proportioned fingers. If you tried to display any of those images I linked in my previous post on the Gameboy, they'd show up as a garbled mess. But with a lot of space between simple lines like what gives cartoons their exaggerated appearance, it shows up better.


Yes. Simple uncolored conceptual line drawings of basically realistically proportioned characters are full toon. /sarc

That might have been what Miamoto had in mind with his concept drawings (or that may just be his way of drawing), but there is a lot of discrepancy between various concept art (from different sources), the game's graphics and the promotional art used in manuals and magazines and stuff, and player's imaginations.


Who's arguing for 100% "realism" in this thread?

Proponents of the toon style are so obsessed and triggered by the word "realism."

I should also point out that "real" is not the same as "gritty." Unless you live in the hood or the wilderness somewhere, reality isn't terribly gritty.


Games that look like a child's finger paint pull me out of the game and dump me back in reality.


Careful not to cut yourself on that edge, killer.


LttP's promotional art didn't go hyper toon, but the game's graphics always looked rather stylized to me. A bright color pallet and somewhat stylized texturing in the pixel art in places always appeared a tad exaggerated which didn't jive with the artwork in the manuals.

On a side note, Okami is a perfect example of how to do cel-shading right. There is no comparison between Waker, Sword, BotW and Okami. The Zelda games look like amateurs compared to Okami's graphics. Ninty just doesn't put much effort into utilizing the technique.

I still couldn't advocate for the Zelda series using the cel-shade technique, even if ninty was as proficient as Clover was with Okami. Because the style that emulated and supported the calligraphy theme with Okami doesn't work for Zelda. Not for me, anyway. Personally, I just can't get invested in a story and a world that isn't taking its appearance seriously. Even Okami realized this which is why the story and characters are largely played for laughs, while Zelda games try to be all serious and dramatic when their tone isn't swinging wildly to quirky and bizarre and back again.

In general, the Zelda series' tone is all over the map graphically, thematically. The structure and gameplay varies wildly from game to game... the series up to Majora was more or less cohesive in all respects. But since then it's been this sporadic mess of tone, narrative, gameplay and visual styles. I pretty much stopped caring to keep up with it all a long time ago.

I definitely prefer the styles of WW and BotW to Okami. I also think that really grey/brown and realistic styles are bland and more boring than colorful, stylistic ones.

 

[thePlinko]

If it's the photographs you're talking about, then yes. But like with every other early game before OoT you have to use a lot of imagination to visualize the look of things. Otherwise all you have to go off of is concept and promotional art, a lot of which varies in style.

Every single one of the images you posted are from pre-ocarina of time games. By your logic they shouldn’t count because they vary in style. It’s more than just an art style that makes LA cartoony, its the entire game. Talking animals, dancing fish, singing frog, even if you made the artstyle realistic it would still be a cartoony game.

LA more than any of the early games can appear so toony because of the Gameboy's display technology having to have elements of every scene compacted on screen. It's what gives its visuals their squat chibi feel. It's a good way to present graphics on such a tiny package. The Oracle games are the same way.

You can also get more fidelity out of static images - such as the photographs - on low fidelity hardware. For the same reason why, for instance, cartoon characters are frequently drawn with four fingers or "mittens" because it requires too much detail to draw individual, realistically proportioned fingers. If you tried to display any of those images I linked in my previous post on the Gameboy, they'd show up as a garbled mess. But with a lot of space between simple lines like what gives cartoons their exaggerated appearance, it shows up better.

Except not a single one of the images you shared were ever displayed in the first three games, so even if the gameboy could display them the intent never would’ve been to do so.

Yes. Simple uncolored conceptual line drawings of basically realistically proportioned characters are full toon. /sarc

These aren’t realistically proportioned in the slightest

That might have been what Miamoto had in mind with his concept drawings (or that may just be his way of drawing), but there is a lot of discrepancy between various concept art (from different sources), the game's graphics and the promotional art used in manuals and magazines and stuff, and player's imaginations.

You literally used your own still images outside the game to prove your point.

Who's arguing for 100% "realism" in this thread?

You are. Maybe not 100% but you are.

Proponents of the toon style are so obsessed and triggered by the word "realism."

I should also point out that "real" is not the same as "gritty." Unless you live in the hood or the wilderness somewhere, reality isn't terribly gritty.

No, “real” and “gritty” are not the same. However “real” and “cartoony” are exact opposites. You can have something be cartoony and gritty at the same time.

Games that look like a child's finger paint pull me out of the game and dump me back in reality.

You mean like this?

Careful not to cut yourself on that edge, killer.

Anyone else find it funny that the person calling me edgy is also the person defending the artstyle of a game where you fight shadow monsters as a werewolf inside of a place called the “Twilight realm”?

LttP's promotional art didn't go hyper toon, but the game's graphics always looked rather stylized to me. A bright color pallet and somewhat stylized texturing in the pixel art in places always appeared a tad exaggerated which didn't jive with the artwork in the manuals.

It’s almost like the series was always meant to be like that and the manuals are a mere afterthought

On a side note, Okami is a perfect example of how to do cel-shading right. There is no comparison between Waker, Sword, BotW and Okami. The Zelda games look like amateurs compared to Okami's graphics. Ninty just doesn't put much effort into utilizing the technique.

The artstyle was the main selling point of Okami, of course they were going to put more effort into it. None of the games you listed had artstyle as a selling point (you could make the argument for Windwaker but nowhere near to the extent as Okami). That being said all three of the games listed look leagues better than TP.

I still couldn't advocate for the Zelda series using the cel-shade technique, even if ninty was as proficient as Clover was with Okami. Because the style that emulated and supported the calligraphy theme with Okami doesn't work for Zelda. Not for me, anyway. Personally, I just can't get invested in a story and a world that isn't taking its appearance seriously. Even Okami realized this which is why the story and characters are largely played for laughs, while Zelda games try to be all serious and dramatic when their tone isn't swinging wildly to quirky and bizarre and back again.

Comic relief is a major component of nearly every story. The trick is to have it in areas that make sense. WW and SS do it perfectly. TP is the one that has a boss in n a dimly lit cave turn into a goofy bouncing eyeball during a completely serious scene.

In general, the Zelda series' tone is all over the map graphically, thematically. The structure and gameplay varies wildly from game to game... the series up to Majora was more or less cohesive in all respects.

The structure and gameplay have more or less been the same throughout the series in fact the games that change the gameplay the most are mostly in those first 6 games you mentioned. Zelda 2, OoT, and especially majoras mask were all incredibly different from the rest gameplay wise. Since then most games have been relatively similar, falling under three categories: 2D, 3D, and multiplayer.

But since then it's been this sporadic mess of tone, narrative, gameplay and visual styles. I pretty much stopped caring to keep up with it all a long time ago.

Like I said, the general gameplay has been the same throughout most of the series. Same goes for narrative, most of the games share a common narrative style. As for tone and visual style.... that’s not a bad thing. As long as certain elements stay the same, a different artstyle makes each game more unique, it gives them more character. If you showed me black opps 2 and modern warfare 3 side by side and asked me to tell you which was which you could never do it, but if you set up majoras mask and skyward sword side by side and told someone with just as much knowledge of Zelda as I do of CoD they could do it near instantly. As much as I hate TP and it’s artstyle, I’ve gotta admit I’m kinda glad they exist.

 

[Castle]

By your logic they shouldn’t count because they vary in style.

That's not my logic at all.

On the contrary, I'm saying that for the early games all the concept drawings and promotional art backs up the visuals of the games since the graphics were so primitive it was hard to convey an artistic style or tone. But which one do think was ever meant to represent the look of the game in the player's imaginations more? Concept art used to assist in visualization during development or promotional art sold with the games?

Talking animals, dancing fish, singing frog, even if you made the artstyle realistic it would still be a cartoony game.

It's... fantasy. Heck, in LA even in the context of the fantasy it's a fantasy since Link's dreaming it.

This is like arguing that the Lord of the Rings films got it wrong because they're live action filmed on location.

Except not a single one of the images you shared were ever displayed in the first three games

yeah? I... know. I never said they were.

Outside material still contributes to the aesthetic of the game, especially the early ones for reasons already mentioned.

so even if the gameboy could display them the intent never would’ve been to do so.

so the gameboy couldn't display an image so that's proof that the image was never intended to be displayed in a game it was never displayed in...

this logic is asinine.

those artworks were for manuals and promotional items... given the primitive nature of the graphics technology back then, that artwork contributes greatly to the aesthetic of the game they're meant to represent.

You literally used your own still images

Wait. Those are my drawings? And here I thought some other guy drew them. Man, I'm literally better at drawing that I thought.

These aren’t realistically proportioned in the slightest

Not completely. Not realistically proportioned in the slightest is the freakishly large head on the freakishly small body with freakishly small legs and freakishly large face that Waker's character aesthetic sports.

You're splitting hairs. I never said those drawings were photorealistic, indistinguishable from reality. They're almost too simple and vague to draw a conclusion on, which I suppose makes them cartoons by default. But then is this really how we're supposed to envision the adventures in those early games to look like?

Even if so, would it not be too terribly outrageous to insist that the presentation become more sophisticated as rendering technology advances?

You are. Maybe not 100% but you are.

So even a little bit of grounding is completely unacceptable in a video game? Then why do any of these characters have legs? Legs make too much sense as a means of conveyance. Legs are too realistic.

You mean like this?

Let's see... relatively proportionate body structure. Legs and arms proportionate to the torso. Average sized head, hands and feet (which is rather uncharacteristic for a clown). Facial features all relatively to scale. Nose maybe too large, but then there are some pretty big schnozes. Mouth too large as well but then I'll assume that's makeup, not his lips. Pot belly not uncommon among... most people. Skin tone represented naturally. Okay, that huge chin with its sharp corners is totally unnatural. Never liked that aspect of Rusl's design either.

No. Not like this at all.

Actually, I never really did like the character design of TP. It works for the alien monsters and characters like Zant and Midna, the twili and of course the monsters of Hyrule and the Gorons and Zora, but I never liked it in the Hylians. The world is presented believably enough and everything sports natural colors and tones, but then the character modeling is obtuse and... kinda brings me out of it. The Hylians weren't ever so fantastic that they warrant exaggerated features. They were always just people with pointy ears up until Wind Waker (whose style is so obtuse that the look doesn't even make sense in a fantasy context).

It's still tame compared to other titles. TP is not going for a cartoony aesthetic. And even though their appearance doesn't jive with the rest of the more grounded presentation, neither are the characters.

Anyone else find it funny that the person calling me edgy is also the person defending the artstyle of a game where you fight shadow monsters as a werewolf inside of a place called the “Twilight realm”?

Look. I'm really... really sorry that you can't stomach that someone has their own aesthetic preferences and that just grinds your gears so hard to the point that you have to have an internet argument with them just for the sake of arguing against it. But I don't find that funny. I find it sad.

It’s almost like the series was always meant to be like that and the manuals are a mere afterthought

Oh sure. Ten years and half a dozen installments worth of different graphical arrangements largely limited by display technology purposely supported by drawn visuals featured in ads and articles and game manuals, followed by a couple decades worth of vastly differing presentations across no less than five 3D capable consoles and you can easily come to the conclusion that the series was always meant to be a hyper-stylized cartoon and the manuals never mattered.

Or... it could be that nintendo simply presents their visuals however they want at the time.

None of the games you listed had artstyle as a selling point

Who cares what they're being sold as? So we can't even talk about visual presentation unless it's a bullet point on the back of the box? Then what's even the point of this discussion?

That being said all three of the games listed look leagues better than TP.

If you disabled the shader effect, Bratz doll playsets would look better than all three of those games, making TP look better by a wide margin.

WW and SS do it perfectly. TP is the one that has a boss in n a dimly lit cave turn into a goofy bouncing eyeball during a completely serious scene.

Alright. If you want to cheery pick, I'll play.

Wind Waker has a slapstick moment right before Link is literally catapulted into the evil overlord's dark fortress to rescue his sister.
Skyward has a goofball supporting character who is so over the top it's impossible to tell if he's meant to be a serious antagonist....
... then Link fights Barney the Purple Dinosaur who is supposed to be the big bad ultimate evil imprisoned for all eternity lest it bring about the end times by... stabbing it in its wobbly balloon toes until they pop.

The structure and gameplay have more or less been the same throughout the series in fact the games that change the gameplay the most are mostly in those first 6 games you mentioned. Zelda 2, OoT, and especially majoras mask were all incredibly different from the rest gameplay wise. Since then most games have been relatively similar, falling under three categories: 2D, 3D, and multiplayer.

I can agree with this mostly, especially in regards to Zelda 2 and Majora being the outliers. But I would also add BotW and Sword to that list. It was really ALttP that established the formula that would only get hammered down harder through to Twilight Princess, then broken by Suckward and BotW (for better or worse).

ALttP was itself an advancement on the mechanics of the first game, but was much more structurally linear. For instance, now bombable walls were clearly marked, lanterns (candles) could only be used on sconces, treasure chests held items instead of items being out in the open, items got increased functionality, etc. But most dungeons had to be completed in a set order, and progress wouldn't take place until certain conditions were met.

Like I said, the general gameplay has been the same throughout most of the series

True. BotW and Suckward are the only major deviations. But then AoL featured RPG leveling, Majora featured its time mechanic and scheduled side questing, Waker sported sailing... all of which were really just unique additions to the usual formula that didn't change anything fundamental.

Same goes for narrative

By narrative I am referring specifically to backstory and lore. Wind Waker went off on a major continuity tangent and Suckward messed with the lore in ways that pointlessly adds massive complications.

As for tone and visual style.... that’s not a bad thing.

No. It's not. But I'll continue to dislike the way ninty is going with presentation simply because it doesn't appeal to me. It detracts from the experience. And so do a lot of things ninty is doing in more recent Zelda titles.

As long as certain elements stay the same, a different artstyle makes each game more unique

That's a fair point, but I would personally prefer that the series establish a cohesive presentation. Aaand... it appears to me as though they've finally settled on it. It's not what I can appreciate, but it's what we've got.

If you showed me black opps 2 and modern warfare 3 side by side and asked me to tell you which was which you could never do it

I would rather argue the merits of a title based on how it plays or how it tells its story. That said, the presentation in the Zelda series is a major factor for me. Essential, even. I can't get invested in the adventure when it looks a certain way.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

They put a glossy veneer over it to hide the lack of fidelity. Kinda like how old women slather themselves in makeup and hang jewelry off themselves like a Christmas tree to make themselves look good.


Low resolution textures and minimal poly count abound. Most of the effort goes into lighting which isn't all that difficult to achieve the toon effect. At least ninty puts some marginal effort into animation to make movement pop.

This is what I miss...

Spoiler

Vintage Geek Culture - Katsuya Terada

Didn't comment on them before, but I'm a big fan of the water-colored artwork for the older, 2D Zelda games. They have a cool style to them and don't fall into any sort of bland anime look. That being said, it also seems like a hard style to translate into actual graphics. Skyward Sword sort of attempted it, and that game looks nowhere near as good as these old images.

 

[thePlinko]

That's not my logic at all.

On the contrary, I'm saying that for the early games all the concept drawings and promotional art backs up the visuals of the games since the graphics were so primitive it was hard to convey an artistic style or tone. But which one do think was ever meant to represent the look of the game in the player's imaginations more? Concept art used to assist in visualization during development or promotional art sold with the games?

The concept art. That was the intended look of the game. Especially considering most promotional art was changed to have a less cartoony style in North America, I’d say that it was supposed to look cartoony.

It's... fantasy. Heck, in LA even in the context of the fantasy it's a fantasy since Link's dreaming it.

This is like arguing that the Lord of the Rings films got it wrong because they're live action filmed on location.

I’ll give you the dream part, but the way the game presents itself outside of artstyle is less of a product of the fact that it’s a fantasy and more of the fact that Zelda is a generally goofy series

yeah? I... know. I never said they were.

Outside material still contributes to the aesthetic of the game, especially the early ones for reasons already mentioned.

Your entire argument was about how they couldn’t display those images, therefore it was impossible for the gameboy to have games that were gritty or realistic. We know this isn’t true because resident evil gaiden was on the system. Granted the gameplay was a bit more up close than Zelda, but the idea that they couldn’t of made LA non-cartoony is just plain stupid.

so the gameboy couldn't display an image so that's proof that the image was never intended to be displayed in a game it was never displayed in...

this logic is asinine.

those artworks were for manuals and promotional items... given the primitive nature of the graphics technology back then, that artwork contributes greatly to the aesthetic of the game they're meant to represent.

See above.

Wait. Those are my drawings? And here I thought some other guy drew them. Man, I'm literally better at drawing that I thought.

I didn’t say they were your drawings. You provided images of artwork that directly contradicted your own point. Your point there was effectively “there are so many differences between concept art, promotional art, and player imagination that you can’t use any one of those things to prove your point about an artstyle on a game made before 1996”

Not completely. Not realistically proportioned in the slightest is the freakishly large head on the freakishly small body with freakishly small legs and freakishly large face that Waker's character aesthetic sports.

I’m not arguing with you there. Windwaker is objectively more cartoony. But you did call them “basically realistically proportioned.”

You're splitting hairs. I never said those drawings were photorealistic, indistinguishable from reality. They're almost too simple and vague to draw a conclusion on, which I suppose makes them cartoons by default. But then is this really how we're supposed to envision the adventures in those early games to look like?

Yes. That’s how the developers envisioned it.

Even if so, would it not be too terribly outrageous to insist that the presentation become more sophisticated as rendering technology advances?

I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking here. We’re talking about specifically 4 games in the late 80s/early 90s. The presentation is plenty sophisticated since then. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you.

So even a little bit of grounding is completely unacceptable in a video game? Then why do any of these characters have legs? Legs make too much sense as a means of conveyance. Legs are too realistic.

That’s not what I’m arguing here. All I said is that you’re arguing for a more realistic artstyle and I’m arguing for a less realistic artstyle. At no point did I ever suggest removing each and every tie to the real world.

Let's see... relatively proportionate body structure. Legs and arms proportionate to the torso. Average sized head, hands and feet (which is rather uncharacteristic for a clown). Facial features all relatively to scale. Nose maybe too large, but then there are some pretty big schnozes. Mouth too large as well but then I'll assume that's makeup, not his lips. Pot belly not uncommon among... most people. Skin tone represented naturally. Okay, that huge chin with its sharp corners is totally unnatural. Never liked that aspect of Rusl's design either.

No. Not like this at all.

Actually, I never really did like the character design of TP. It works for the alien monsters and characters like Zant and Midna, the twili and of course the monsters of Hyrule and the Gorons and Zora, but I never liked it in the Hylians. The world is presented believably enough and everything sports natural colors and tones, but then the character modeling is obtuse and... kinda brings me out of it. The Hylians weren't ever so fantastic that they warrant exaggerated features. They were always just people with pointy ears up until Wind Waker (whose style is so obtuse that the look doesn't even make sense in a fantasy context).

It's still tame compared to other titles. TP is not going for a cartoony aesthetic. And even though their appearance doesn't jive with the rest of the more grounded presentation, neither are the characters.

There’s more to being a cartoon than the model itself though. His mannerisms, color scheme, and overall personality are all very cartoon like. Yes I get that he’s a clown and that clowns are a real thing, but the entire point of a clown is to be like a cartoon, something that doesn’t fit in well with the “dark” and “gritty” style of TP. The game is full of this. The clowns, the cannons, malo mart, and a metric ton of goofy moments make this game feel like they were trying way too hard to make this the one game in the series that wasn’t cartoony, only to fail because they couldn’t help themselves.

Look. I'm really... really sorry that you can't stomach that someone has their own aesthetic preferences and that just grinds your gears so hard to the point that you have to have an internet argument with them just for the sake of arguing against it. But I don't find that funny. I find it sad.

I never said you couldn’t have a different preference, I’m just pointing out irony. I’m not insulting you or anything.

Oh sure. Ten years and half a dozen installments worth of different graphical arrangements largely limited by display technology purposely supported by drawn visuals featured in ads and articles and game manuals, followed by a couple decades worth of vastly differing presentations across no less than five 3D capable consoles and you can easily come to the conclusion that the series was always meant to be a hyper-stylized cartoon and the manuals never mattered.

Or... it could be that nintendo simply presents their visuals however they want at the time.

And how they wanted it at any given time was cartoony. If I’m going to be comparing the manual art to the actual game and see two different styles like you’re doing, then I’m probably going to go with the game for the the final say on the definitive style.
Considering out of the 19 installments there is a single title that’s considered non-stylized, I’m willing to say that it was probably always meant to be like that.

Who cares what they're being sold as? So we can't even talk about visual presentation unless it's a bullet point on the back of the box? Then what's even the point of this discussion?

We can talk about it all we like, but putting down the way Windwaker handles Toon shading because “Okami did it better” is unfair. Of course Okami did it better, that doesn’t mean Windwaker did it poorly.

If you disabled the shader effect, Bratz doll playsets would look better than all three of those games, making TP look better by a wide margin.

And if you disabled the textures in Minecraft the game would look worse than a tatooed leper, making those three games look better by a wide margin.

Alright. If you want to cheery pick, I'll play.

Wind Waker has a slapstick moment right before Link is literally catapulted into the evil overlord's dark fortress to rescue his sister.
Skyward has a goofball supporting character who is so over the top it's impossible to tell if he's meant to be a serious antagonist....
... then Link fights Barney the Purple Dinosaur who is supposed to be the big bad ultimate evil imprisoned for all eternity lest it bring about the end times by... stabbing it in its wobbly balloon toes until they pop.

Those first two examples are timed just before (and in grooses case, after) important events, not during.

As for the imprisoned and tentalus, those weren’t comic relief, these were just cases of the designers making something they thought looked cool but didn’t. Even then the imprisoned is still a genuinely tense moment, albeit for the wrong reasons.

I can agree with this mostly, especially in regards to Zelda 2 and Majora being the outliers. But I would also add BotW and Sword to that list. It was really ALttP that established the formula that would only get hammered down harder through to Twilight Princess, then broken by Suckward and BotW (for better or worse).

ALttP was itself an advancement on the mechanics of the first game, but was much more structurally linear. For instance, now bombable walls were clearly marked, lanterns (candles) could only be used on sconces, treasure chests held items instead of items being out in the open, items got increased functionality, etc. But most dungeons had to be completed in a set order, and progress wouldn't take place until certain conditions were met.

I’m just referring to the first 6 though, as you said the series until Majora was largely kept the same in this regard. I completely agree that BotW is another game like that, but why SS?

I never understood why people said that LttP made the formula. To me it was made by Zelda 1, streamlined a bit by LttP, and finalized by LA. Most of your examples are less improvements to the formula and more improvements on specific mechanics. Also people seem to forget that there is a ton of linearity in Zelda 1. You can’t access dungeon 4 without doing dungeon 3, you can’t finish any of the dungeons after 3 without doing doing 4, you can’t access dungeon 7 without doing dungeon 6, the list goes on. Sure it’s not scripted like later titles, but I’d argue that there is just as much linearity relative to the size of the game as in LttP.

True. BotW and Suckward are the only major deviations. But then AoL featured RPG leveling, Majora featured its time mechanic and scheduled side questing, Waker sported sailing... all of which were really just unique additions to the usual formula that didn't change anything fundamental.

I’d still consider what AOL, MM, and at the time OoT did to be major deviations to the core gameplay of other titles. Maybe not the formula, but in terms of the base mechanics these are some of the most different games in the series.

By narrative I am referring specifically to backstory and lore. Wind Waker went off on a major continuity tangent and Suckward messed with the lore in ways that pointlessly adds massive complications.

I can agree to an extent on SS, but as I’ve stated prior, Windwaker was an outstanding sequel that had strong ties to OoT, making the world of Zelda actually feel like a world. But that’s a completely different argument.

No. It's not. But I'll continue to dislike the way ninty is going with presentation simply because it doesn't appeal to me. It detracts from the experience. And so do a lot of things ninty is doing in more recent Zelda titles.


That's a fair point, but I would personally prefer that the series establish a cohesive presentation. Aaand... it appears to me as though they've finally settled on it. It's not what I can appreciate, but it's what we've got.


I would rather argue the merits of a title based on how it plays or how it tells its story. That said, the presentation in the Zelda series is a major factor for me. Essential, even. I can't get invested in the adventure when it looks a certain way.

That’s all understandable. I actually do rather like the general style of SS and BotW. I feel like it’s a good middle ground between the two styles.

 

[Castle]

Your entire argument was about how they couldn’t display those images, therefore it was impossible for the gameboy to have games that were gritty or realistic.

Not the point I'm making.

We know this isn’t true because resident evil gaiden was on the system.

You know LA first released on the original black and white Gameboy. The game couldn't even use color, and had less than half the resolution of the GBC to express itself. RE Gaiden had a lot more to work with to establish its look.

Your point there was effectively “there are so many differences between concept art, promotional art, and player imagination that you can’t use any one of those things to prove your point about an artstyle on a game made before 1996”

Not my point. My point is that all those factors contribute to the look of the game.

Zelda is a generally goofy series

Goofy isn't the vibe I always got from the series. The goofy tone has only started to get more prevalent in recent installments. Otherwise the games can be pretty serious. Even in more recent titles the tone swings wildly between slapstick and overwrought melodrama.

The presentation is plenty sophisticated since then.

Nintendo's use of the cel-shading technique is amateurish at best.

The WiiU tech demo... now that's sophisticated.

That’s not what I’m arguing here. All I said is that you’re arguing for a more realistic artstyle and I’m arguing for a less realistic artstyle.

We all have our own individual preferences then.

The clowns, the cannons, malo mart, and a metric ton of goofy moments make this game feel like they were trying way too hard to make this the one game in the series that wasn’t cartoony, only to fail because they couldn’t help themselves.

I agree. And I never really appreciated the disparate tone myself.

Considering out of the 19 installments there is a single title that’s considered non-stylized

You see cartoons everywhere.

Of course Okami did it better, that doesn’t mean Windwaker did it poorly.

Naw. Wind Waker did it poorly. More than just the cel-shading technique the whole style is off putting.

And if you disabled the textures in Minecraft the game would look worse than a tatooed leper, making those three games look better by a wide margin.

A false equivalency. If you disabled the textures in minecraft you'd get a bunch of missing textures. Even if you disabled the shader effect in BotW, et. you'd still have textures. Hideous glossy textures and low poly count, but there'd still be textures.

Even Microsoft is moving to improve the presentation of minecraft of all things to add enhanced environmental lighting and high definition resolution.

Nintendo is still covering their low resolution and low poly models in a glossy paint job.

Those first two examples are timed just before (and in grooses case, after) important events, not during.

And the goofy eyeball thing takes place just after an important event, not during. But we're splitting hairs again.

but why SS?

Suckward of all Zelda titles messed around with the gameplay and structure of the series drastically. Insanely enforced linearity, to the point that there is effectively no overworld/dungeon dichotomy that is the mainstay of every other title. It effectively utilizes the central hub structure reportedly considered for Ocarina of Time during its development, and is more closely related to the metroidvania level structure than Zelda's signature overworld/dungeon template, albeit implemented extremely poorly.

A narrative farther removed from previous Zelda fiction than Wind Waker even, that introduces a bunch of unnecessary concepts that straight up contradict much of what little has been understood about whatever established lore the series has. And a presentation that, like Waker, drastically differs in style and tone from the rest of the series.

I never understood why people said that LttP made the formula.

LttP didn't make the formula, it established it. Kinda like how Elvis didn't invent rock n' roll, he established the sound and popularity. The formula was further cemented by subsequent titles. The general concept for the series has been there since Zelda 1, and followed with varying degrees of faithfulness from title to title. The Zelda formula that ALttP established had gone stale by Twilight Princess. I just don't think ninty has done a good or even entirely faithful job reinvigorating it with BotW and suckward.

Also people seem to forget that there is a ton of linearity in Zelda 1. You can’t access dungeon 4 without doing dungeon 3, you can’t finish any of the dungeons after 3 without doing doing 4, you can’t access dungeon 7 without doing dungeon 6, the list goes on. Sure it’s not scripted like later titles, but I’d argue that there is just as much linearity relative to the size of the game as in LttP.

That's still a lot of player freedom compared to subsequent installments.

I’d still consider what AOL, MM, and at the time OoT did to be major deviations to the core gameplay of other titles.

Different, sure. And thus refreshing.

Maybe not the formula, but in terms of the base mechanics these are some of the most different games in the series.

And that is why the Zelda formula didn't require such a drastic fundamental change as BotW and suckward provide.

Windwaker was an outstanding sequel that had strong ties to OoT, making the world of Zelda actually feel like a world. But that’s a completely different argument.

A different argument, for certain. But I'll still maintain that those ties are superficial and thus practically meaningless. Cheap meaningless callbacks have become an increasingly persistent annoyance in recent Zelda titles, IMO. TP establishes meaningful ties to Ocarina of Time while adding to our understanding of the lore. It's even given us insight into what happened to the Hero of Time. It's vague, but meaningful.

Wind Waker be leik, "here are some stain glass windows of the sages from Ocarina of Time. Remember those? Chibi Zelda looks like Ocarina of Time Zelda, only chibi. And this is a statue of the Hero of Time, even though it looks nothing like him." And Suckward be leik, "LuLz here's a load of inconsequential backstory that does nothing but confuse and contradict anything we've said before."

That’s all understandable. I actually do rather like the general style of SS and BotW. I feel like it’s a good middle ground between the two styles.

It's good then that this is the look ninty is going for. You can understand how I can't really appreciate it.

 

[thePlinko]

You know LA first released on the original black and white Gameboy. The game couldn't even use color, and had less than half the resolution of the GBC to express itself. RE Gaiden had a lot more to work with to establish its look.

Ok. How about alien Vs predator: the last of his clan? That was a game released the same year as LA.

Not my point. My point is that all those factors contribute to the look of the game.

So each of our examples contribute to the style equally?

Goofy isn't the vibe I always got from the series. The goofy tone has only started to get more prevalent in recent installments. Otherwise the games can be pretty serious. Even in more recent titles the tone swings wildly between slapstick and overwrought melodrama.

Even if you wanted to exclude the first 4 games, there is plenty of goofy parts in OoT and MM. This isn’t a new thing. I will admit though that SS has more of it than usual.

Nintendo's use of the cel-shading technique is amateurish at best.

The WiiU tech demo... now that's sophisticated.

That’s just Twilight Princess with lighting colors that don’t suck. Also there’s nothing sophisticated about whatever drug the camera was on.

A false equivalency. If you disabled the textures in minecraft you'd get a bunch of missing textures. Even if you disabled the shader effect in BotW, et. you'd still have textures. Hideous glossy textures and low poly count, but there'd still be textures.

Even Microsoft is moving to improve the presentation of minecraft of all things to add enhanced environmental lighting and high definition resolution.

Nintendo is still covering their low resolution and low poly models in a glossy paint job.

But that’s the thing. The entire artstyle revolves around the lighting. Of course if you take the main part of an artstyle away it’s gonna look like crap.

Suckward of all Zelda titles messed around with the gameplay and structure of the series drastically. Insanely enforced linearity, to the point that there is effectively no overworld/dungeon dichotomy that is the mainstay of every other title. It effectively utilizes the central hub structure reportedly considered for Ocarina of Time during its development, and is more closely related to the metroidvania level structure than Zelda's signature overworld/dungeon template, albeit implemented extremely poorly.

Eh... I guess that’s different, but I wouldn’t say it’s so drastic of a change.

A narrative farther removed from previous Zelda fiction than Wind Waker even, that introduces a bunch of unnecessary concepts that straight up contradict much of what little has been understood about whatever established lore the series has. And a presentation that, like Waker, drastically differs in style and tone from the rest of the series.

Once again I can agree to a point, but not all the way. TP messes around with lore just about as much as SS and far more than WW.

LttP didn't make the formula, it established it. Kinda like how Elvis didn't invent rock n' roll, he established the sound and popularity. The formula was further cemented by subsequent titles. The general concept for the series has been there since Zelda 1, and followed with varying degrees of faithfulness from title to title. The Zelda formula that ALttP established had gone stale by Twilight Princess. I just don't think ninty has done a good or even entirely faithful job reinvigorating it with BotW and suckward.

I don’t think the formula went stale or anything, I think that TP and SS just didn’t follow the formula very well. It’s like they read a list of bullet points for what the formula is, but didn’t read the fine print and thus didn’t know why those bullet points mattered. I will 100% agree with BotW though.

That's still a lot of player freedom compared to subsequent installments.

In later installments like TP and SS sure, but like I said Zelda 1, LttP, and OoT had relatively similar amounts of linearity.

Different, sure. And thus refreshing.

But I’d say that SS, while the it may or may not be refreshing, was a deviation in the same way as these three and not a full on revamp of the formula like BotW. My main point in all of this is the fact that you said that the gameplay of the first 6 games are relatively the same compared to later titles, which just isn’t true.

And that is why the Zelda formula didn't require such a drastic fundamental change as BotW and suckward provide.

Exactly. I always like telling people that MM is one of the most different games in the series. It still plays like Zelda, it steel feels like Zelda, it still treats itself like Zelda, and yet it doesn’t even have the triforce, ganon, Zelda, the master sword, etc. BotW has all of these and yet feels less like Zelda and more like Skyrim.

A different argument, for certain. But I'll still maintain that those ties are superficial and thus practically meaningless. Cheap meaningless callbacks have become an increasingly persistent annoyance in recent Zelda titles, IMO. TP establishes meaningful ties to Ocarina of Time while adding to our understanding of the lore. It's even given us insight into what happened to the Hero of Time. It's vague, but meaningful.

Wind Waker be leik, "here are some stain glass windows of the sages from Ocarina of Time. Remember those? Chibi Zelda looks like Ocarina of Time Zelda, only chibi. And this is a statue of the Hero of Time, even though it looks nothing like him." And Suckward be leik, "LuLz here's a load of inconsequential backstory that does nothing but confuse and contradict anything we've said before."

The entire story of Windwaker revolves around the fact that OoT happened though. It needs these callbacks in order to work. It was less the series continuing the story of OoT and more it transitioning into a new story later.

If you want to talk about superficial callbacks, how about freezing Zoras domain in TP? Or the temple of time being a dungeon that nobody knew about until TP? Or the fact that the first light spirit just said “you’re the reincarnation of the hero” and gave him clothes that vaguely looked like the hero of time?

I will give you the hero’s shade part, I did quite enjoy that. It was one of the only redeeming factors of TP for me.

Lore wise TP did a number on the series. There are tons of plot points and details that make no sense. Why does ganondorf have the triforce? Why do the twili suddenly exist? Why do the light spirits exist? Why are all but one of them named after goddesses? In LttP it’s established that the sacred animal of the hero is the bunny, why is it a wolf all of a sudden? None of these are ever explained or referenced in prior titles. It’s not like Windwaker which literally explains or at the very least implies why different things happened in between it and OoT. The koroks and rito evolved from the kokiri and zoras respectively. Windfall is present day Kakariko. The three deities are direct descendants of different deities in OoT. WW built on the wrote in a way that evolved it to what it was. TP threw in a bunch of new stuff and said “it relates to OoT, I swear!”

 

[el :BeoWolf:]

Why do the twili suddenly exist?

They didn't "suddenly exist" they have existed for ages but in their own realm which wasn't meant to interact with the light world until Zant invaded.

LttP it’s established that the sacred animal of the hero is the bunny, why is it a wolf all of a sudden?

The reason Link turned into a bunny in the dark world was because it turns everyone into the form that best represents their personalities. Link as a bunny, the bully as a demon, the bully's friend became a ball because he was indecisive.
Link transforming into a wolf was because of the Triforce protecting him from becoming a helpless spirit while under the twilight. Two unrelated phenomenon happening to two different Links

 

[thePlinko]

They didn't "suddenly exist" they have existed for ages but in their own realm which wasn't meant to interact with the light world until Zant invaded.

In terms of additions to the lore the twili didn’t exist until TP. TP never gives a good reason why they are never mentioned until then, as it acts as if the twilight realm was a known thing as early as OoT

The reason Link turned into a bunny in the dark world was because it turns everyone into the form that best represents their personalities. Link as a bunny, the bully as a demon, the bully's friend became a ball because he was indecisive.
Link transforming into a wolf was because of the Triforce protecting him from becoming a helpless spirit while under the twilight. Two unrelated phenomenon happening to two different Links

Both of these instances are described in game as it being “the sacred animal.”

 

[SpiritOfTheHero]

Well, regarding the original post, that's sort of a difficult question to unpack. There isn't really an "old" and "new". Zelda games have gone through quite a few eras.

The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II: Adventure of Link both stress exploration and challenge of execution. You wander the world fairly free of restrictions, but are gated by your skill at fighting enemies and evading damage just as much as you are by any gating mechanics. Even dungeons are more about simply putting in the time, and not so much about solving any sort of overarching puzzle.

Then you hit the early 3D era, capable of a degree of sophistication and physical atmosphere previously unheard of, and emphasis moves more towards understanding the physical relationships in an environment. Combat becomes focused on complex combat options against a single foe. Dungeons become puzzle boxes where you can sometimes change many aspects of it, or how you move through it. While this was seen in single instances in games like Link to the Past or Link's Awakening, it becomes a central tenant in games like Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. Not only are dungeons defined by their relationship to each other, but the overworld now becomes an extension of that puzzle-solving mentality by often requiring lengthy solutions or strings of events to even get from one dungeon to the next. And while there continue to be 2D Zelda games as well, they don't really define the franchise in any real way, but instead either follow its current trends or emulate older ideas (so I'm not really gonna get into them).

Then you reach the late 3D era with the likes of Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword. While each one attempts to do something new, none of them really break real ground in how they are designed. Instead they mostly just react to one another. Their defining and unifying characteristic, however, becomes one of... how to put this... tour guideship? Instead of plopping a hefty puzzle or combat challenge on the player's plate, the games seem more structured to create a variety of set pieces that it intends to lead you through. Numerous features are created to ensure that no one ever loses the trail for even a moment. Regardless of what order you can or can't complete tasks in and how much freedom there is in such decisions (where they even exist), a defined and set path through the game is created and adhered to, and anything that might slow or divert the player is largely illusory. Dungeons begin to exhibit a looping structure that discourages backtracking, various hint systems are created that tell or simply show you how to overcome the next obstacle, and martial difficulty takes a serious dive.

Then we have Breath of the Wild. What defines this era? No idea, it's just begun.

So, I'd say we have four definite eras or styles of Zelda: Git Gud, Figure It Out, Take My Hand Sweetie, and Breath of the Wild.

As for my favorite, and which I think is best and would like to go back to? I think you can Figure It Out for yourself...

Your response has given me a lot to contemplate, but I think I understand your rationale. While it is indeed true that every Legend of Zelda game has done something to deviate from its predecessor, I still believe there has been an overarching approach, if not a formula, to the games.

I would argue that every Zelda game, with the exception of perhaps, Skyward Sword, all stress exploration in some format or another. The challenge of execution is, perhaps, more present in the early 2D era than the mid to late 2D era. Although I would also argue that a game like Minish Cap stresses both exploration and skill of execution, not so much in its dungeons and bosses but in the sheer factor of repetition of the backtracking you are required to perform to beat the game.

While dungeon puzzles are less prevalent in Legend of Zelda and Zelda ll: The Adventure of Link, I would argue that it becomes a central staple from A Link to the Past onward, whether 2D or 3D. So, insofar as a formulaic aspect is concerned, I think that dungeon puzzles are a defining mechanic of the Legend of Zelda series. The next component would be exploration which you can see is most prevalent in entries such as Minish Cap, A Link to the Past, The Legend of Zelda and Zelda ll: The Adventure of Link, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, The Oracle duology, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess. This is so far as the older titles are concerned, we know for a fact that Breath of the Wild certainly prefaces exploration to a significant degree.

I also think an adventure narrative should or ought to be established, it's less obvious in the first two games, but A Link to the Past is perhaps the first entry to establish a framework for the lore. Yes, I think lore is important because it helps to build the world and the characters which inhabit it. Continuity is another factor, but I think each title with the exception of the Oracle duology, tends to generate its own interpretation of Hyrule's geography and terrain, either by expanding it or altering it entirely. Lake Hylia looks vastly different in Twilight Princess than its initial appearance from Ocarina of Time, for example.

As for which I think you prefer, I am going to assume you prefer the early 3D era since you had such glowing things to write about it. I for one also think the early 3D era is preferable, but Twilight Princess is a spiritual sequel to Ocarina of Time so I have to praise it.

 

[AncientPoe]

I would argue that every Zelda game, with the exception of perhaps, Skyward Sword, all stress exploration in some format or another. The challenge of execution is, perhaps, more present in the early 2D era than the mid to late 2D era. Although I would also argue that a game like Minish Cap stresses both exploration and skill of execution, not so much in its dungeons and bosses but in the sheer factor of repetition of the backtracking you are required to perform to beat the game.

See, I think you're failing to pick up on the distinction I made between innovation and iteration. Not every Zelda game innovates. And just because a game has certain features, it doesn't mean that the design of the game stresses them. In order to understand that, you have to look at what elements the game places the most emphasis on, or what features they had to invent in order make it possible. The innovation/iteration cycle is largely what defines each era. Ocarina of Time innovates. They had to create things like fluid 3D combat, and had to rethink the way they did environmental puzzles. Then Majora's Mask iterates on those by taking the lessons learned in Ocarina's creation and the feedback they received in order to make the phenomenal puzzles in Majora's Mask.

So yes, practically every Zelda game has exploration, but not every game makes it the central pillar of gameplay. For instance, there are many areas in Minish Cap where you can get an item to open an area, only to find another gating mechanic immediately behind that. This is an exploration penalty, because you often find areas that you can't really do anything with until later, but you also gain nothing by finding them early. But, as counterexample, in Majora's Mask if you explore many of the entries to each major world area you can still find something to make the trip worthwhile. Milk Road has the Gorman Race, Southern Swamp has the River Boat Cruise and some heart pieces, and the shooting gallery, Ikana Canyon has the Stone Mask.

But anyway, the reason for my earlier prattling was that there are definite eras of Zelda games that feature drastically different development ideologies that created them (as well as a preliminary attempt at outlining and defining them).

 

[Castle]

My main point in all of this is the fact that you said that the gameplay of the first 6 games are relatively the same compared to later titles

Literally never said that.

The entire story of Windwaker revolves around the fact that OoT happened though.

Waker just acknowledges that Ocarina of Time exists. If it weren't for the specific callbacks referring specifically to Ocarina, Waker could have continued from virtually any game in the series.

If you want to talk about superficial callbacks, how about freezing Zoras domain in TP?

That might not be so much a callback as ninty repeating themselves like they do.

Why do the twili suddenly exist?

I started an entire thread here on ZD asking that very question. We actually came to a rather clear consensus based on the possibilities. If it was enough for Zelda fans to have almost a page or two of discussion about it, it must have some merit.

How many active fan theories are there of Wind Waker?

Why does ganondorf have the triforce?

This is actually a good question. While TP might have been the first instance of Link, Zelda and Ganon just having the Triforce by default, it has been a thing in every game since. The simplest explanation for me is that ninty has veered away from the narrative trope of the quest for the triforce. Now the main characters must inherit it. It sems like writers convenience that confuses things without providing any explanation as to why. It could be part of the whole reincarnation mess ninty made with Suckward. Who knows? There's a lot that ninty leaves up to speculation.

Why do the light spirits exist?

Just because something just appears out of nowhere doesn't make it a glaring plot hole. But it does kinda beg the question, where were the light spirits in Ocarina of Time?

Why are all but one of them named after goddesses?

There are fan theories about this, mostly regarding the goddess hylia and the infamous tetraforce. Again, if it's enough to build theories off of, it must be meaningful.

In LttP it’s established that the sacred animal of the hero is the bunny, why is it a wolf all of a sudden?

Because one Link got turned into a bunny and the other got turned into a wolf? What's this about the bunny being the "sacred animal of the hero?" I just remember ALttP saying anyone who enters the dark world gets turned into whatever form fits their personality. TP Link didn't get turned into a wolf by the dark world. He got turned into a wolf by the twilight - or rather, the triforce reacting to his exposure to the twilight to protect him

Or the temple of time being a dungeon that nobody knew about until TP?

That's significant, especially when you remember that the tot serves as a gateway into the sacred realm, which was the whole point of the child era of OoT. Ever wonder why we never actually got to see the sacred realm despite it being our objective in that part of the game? Then you recall that the tot is linked to the Temple of Light in the sacred realm. Put it together and you can at least infer that the dungeon portion of the tot is possibly the temple of light in the sacred realm. Then you recall that Navi left Link through the same window that leads to the tot dungeon. Is there a possible connection there? Did she leave Hyrule to the sacred realm? Why? Then why was Link looking for her in the lost woods in Majora? The same lost woods that the ruins of the tot are now in...

All those revelations don't explain much, but they are plenty meaningful. They ain't no simple callback reference.

The koroks and rito evolved from the kokiri and zoras respectively.

This is a fan theory. It was never explicitly stated in the game.

Windfall is present day Kakariko.

A superficial callback. The only similarity between Kakariko and Windfall is a windmill. There's nothing to suggest that Kakariko in any way historically related to Kakariko. Windfall is arguably, at most, a thin superficial callback to Kakariko, but only if you consider that the only similarities is that they both have windmills and they're both each game's major settlement (or in Waker's case, the only major settlement sans Outset). If ninty really wanted to be daring with their callback, they'd just name Windfall Kakariko like they always do.

The three deities are direct descendants of different deities in OoT.

Where is this ever explained in the game? I always assumed they were the same three goddesses.

Or the fact that the first light spirit just said “you’re the reincarnation of the hero” and gave him clothes that vaguely looked like the hero of time?

This is a staple of every Zelda game now. If it makes no sense in TP, then it makes no sense in every game since.

 

[TheGreatCthulhu]

I like new ideas.

We've had plenty of games with the old ideas, let's try something new.

 

[snoc]

taking into account what Cthulhu says (and wanting a more simplistic response). Using old things that people a lot is fine, but new things bring new ideas for a game, which I want. to put it simply: using something we already like is good, making something new for us to like is probably better.