Early Zelda vs. Later Zelda

[Iridescence]

The Early Era

• Legend of Zelda - practically invented the adventure genre
• Adventure of Link - was a slip-up but in relative terms, one of the best games of the year
• A Link to the Past - defining game ; expanded on the original in every way with great magnitude.
• Link's Awakening - totally new story/environment and significantly impact on handheld gaming
• Ocarina of Time - was that perfect 10/10 that revolutionized 3D gaming, plain and simple
• Majora's Mask - changed up the formula significantly and had a deep story
• Oracle of Ages - kinda derivative, but still stood as one of the very best GBC games
• Oracle of Seasons - see above

That's 7 out of 8 successful titles. VERY consistent.

The Later Era

Opinions on these games are certainly polarizing but I'm sure the majority of Zelda fans (in whichever camp they're a part of) can agree that the number of "ehh... kinda disappointing" titles here outweighs the number of generation-defining titles.

• The Wind Waker - This one was vindicated for its art style and is now widely praised.
• Four Sword Adventures - Fun games shackled by the GBA sales gimmick. moving on...
• The Minish Cap - Praised for its visuals and criticized for being too formulaic
• Twilight Princess - A mixture of hype, disappointment, failure, success, acclaim and forgettability.
• Phantom Hourglass - It was super-derivative and you had to repeat the same dungeon 6 times
• Spirit Tracks - Criticized by many for excessive backtracking and linear overworld
• Skyward Sword - Criticized by many for excessive handholding, filler content and linearity
• A Link Between Worlds - Was a strong return to form but also the least original title in the series.

I can't put a count to which of these titles would be considered a success. TWW would be one of them. The others, since they are recent, might take more time to re-evaluate, but the second half of the series has been quite rocky.

What went wrong?

Nintendo started listening to their fans and started to make the games with their fans in mind.

In the 80's, 90's and early 2000's, the Zelda games were art. Nintendo created the games that they wanted to make, strived for quality control, but ultimately, it was their creation and they had the last word. Fans just took the games as they were and enjoyed them.

Then, the series became old enough as to where the fans had a working opinion of what they wanted. There was a civil war between "cartoony" and "realistic" for a while, so Aunoma felt the need to give an olive branch to both sides. Fans complained that they got lost in dungeons, so Aunoma dumbed down the level design and added handholding to cater to them. Fans wanted more formulaic games in the vein of OOT/ALTTP and less experimental games like LA/MM.

And meanwhile, Miyamoto wanted the Zelda series to embrace touch/motion controls to vindicate his idea that any game could benefit from motion controls as much as Zelda could. So basically, Zelda games became copy/paste formula here, with a new art style, plus insert-gimmick-here.

 

[ReveredPartisan]

You've brought this up before, and I've shared my opinion on it, but no hurt in Returning to it.

I think you're romanticising. There are a lot more factors to making a good Zelda game than whether you "go with your heart" or not. I agree they've been trying to make games more accessible to a larger audience recently, and maybe that's a mistake; but assuming Zelda has been getting stale, it's one of many.

I also think you're twisting your thoughts off of where you draw the line. To pick a small example, you downplay MC but praise OoA/OoS-- why? I feel as though if you had classified the latter titles as "Later Zelda," you would have framed them as repetitious, bland, etc. It would seem as though you came in with a thesis in mind and handpicked the qualities of each game that you thought best explempified said thesis.

There have been instances where Nintendo hast let the fans dictate a portion of their creative will, but these are few and far between, and far more isolated than you think. These games have been in production for 25 years; they're bound to run dry after a while, and that's entirely assuming the more recent games have been disappointments, to which I wouldn't agree.

 

[Skullkid96]

For me the Zelda series has always been in my life. when I was four, watching my older cousins and uncles play OoT, having fun playing it. when I finally got to play it...I had no idea what to do. which was frustrating. Now that I'm older, I look back at OoT has a fun game. But as I got in Zelda more in middle school, (finally being able to play WW 6-7 years after release, along with Twilight Princess and MM also finally being able to beat OoT,lost count how many times I beaten it.) When I found out how great it was again. (4-5 year absence) I was hooked, beating OoT, MM, TP, WW, beating the Original. it was awesome. Playing ALTTP (ice dungeon sucks). For me the Zelda series is awesome, now when SS came out it was awesome! getting to play a new zelda game when it came out was great! but as you said in SS there is a lot of handholding from Fi, which wasn't cool and the motion control was ok. should've had an option for classic controls. i see how a lot of the games seem boring to a person who played them from the beginning and how they saw it evolve. As for me, I saw it up to the most recent ones. I enjoy the Zelda has a whole, just some of the games are frustrating like OoA. as for WW being dislike when it came out i really didn't know. My experience with it was the demo in the zelda collection for the gamecube. and didn't get to play it till middle school (around 2009-2011) I like WW, it was fun, challenging and everything. but around that time MM became my favorite, it was unique. I do have memories of seeing it in a hollywood video and telling my brother "they made a new zelda game!", this was around 2002. That same reaction was used again when I saw a trailer for TP at a Toys r Us. But what I'm trying to say is, I love each Zelda game for certain things in them and what they have to offer. Yes I think the new ones are a tad bit easier (ALBW), but its a series that many people love and some times things will be reused (too many times). But I love the zelda series and haven't played PH yet, even though I own it. and MC don't have that one yet. But yeah my opinion is different and the same as yours.

 

[SavageWizzrobe]

I honestly think this problem isn't unique to Zelda. It's a problem every game franchise faces: the balance of old and new things in order to keep old fans coming back, but also to build the fan base even more. Furthermore, the Zelda series has been around for a relatively long time (more than 25 years), so the existing fans have had plenty of time to figure out what they like in a Zelda game. It turns out that, because of the great success of ALttP and OoT (the former "perfecting" a 2D formula, the latter being the first 3D Zelda), some fans use these games as ideals for how every Zelda game should be.
Hence, I think Nintendo may have listened too much to their own fan base and tried to please everyone. There are some Zelda fans who aren't willing to accept changes to the formula set by ALttP/OoT. At the same time, the formula was getting stale to others, so change was needed to bring something fresh to the table. So Nintendo decided to keep the ALttP/OoT formula to appease one group of fans, while adding gimmicks to appease another group.
The way I understand it, Nintendo's in a tough spot in terms of Zelda development since they have fans that adhere to the impossible standard of ALttP/OoT. The "perfect" (according to some fans) 2D formula in ALttP cannot be made better, and there can only be one first 3D Zelda game. The irony is that ALttP and OoT are by no means perfect games: I personally don't like ALttP all that much because it's frustrating, and OoT's text and cutscenes can get on your nerves sometimes.

 

[Spirit]

Hmm....

Hey, at least the Classic-Modern Zelda argument isn't as bad as the Classic-Modern Resident Evil argument...

 

[Kingwobbly]

I've never not enjoyed a Zelda game, they're all fun in their own way. I don't mind the formula either, it's what we've come to expect from Zelda, but I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with the new one. Even the worst Zelda game is still good, just not compared to the rest (in my opinion at least).

 

[the8thark]

Legend of Zelda - practically invented the adventure genre

Agreed, it was a pretty good game and second quest was really challenging too.

Adventure of Link - was a slip-up but in relative terms, one of the best games of the year

Totally disagree with you. The game was not a slip up at all. The game was amazing. Miyamoto just realised that the game took LoZ in the wrong direction so he went back to a Zelda1 style for Zelda 3

A Link to the Past - defining game ; expanded on the original in every way with great magnitude.

Disagree again. Musically this game set the standard and even today most Zelda games are just a rehash on Zelda 3 musically. Very little new music has come since Zelda 3. Past the music, the game is too cartoony for my liking and way too easy. Still a good game though.

Link's Awakening - totally new story/environment and significantly impact on handheld gaming

I can agree with this. The story was rather different. Even if this game felt rather wacky and unzelda like. The Mario chain chomp in a good example of this.

Ocarina of Time - was that perfect 10/10 that revolutionized 3D gaming, plain and simple

Perfect? My ass. The game was good at the time and did keep the N64 alive as a console. Musically this game (apart from a few select tracks) was just a rehashed Zelda 3. And this game has way too many abusable glitches. Whoever did QA testing on Ocarina, did a poor job of it. The game is good, slightly on the easy side, but that's ok as it was fun. A rather good game for the time.

Majora's Mask - changed up the formula significantly and had a deep story

Basically Ocarina clone, but with a better story, more difficulty and a great rather unique 3 day mechanic. If you can handle the very outdated (by today's standards) visuals then you have a damn god game on your hands.

Oracle of Ages - kinda derivative, but still stood as one of the very best GBC games
Oracle of Seasons - see above

I can agree with this.

The Wind Waker - This one was vindicated for its art style and is now widely praised.

The game is ok. Art style is a big mistake. Took Zelda in thew wrong direction. Hope Nintendo has learnt from this mistake. And the dungeons were too short and very uninspired. Also way to much pointless fishing for treasure. The good part of this game was the NPCs. They really had a lot of life and back stories.

Four Sword Adventures - Fun games shackled by the GBA sales gimmick. moving on...

Disagree. This game was rather fun. Not the best GC game ever. But it was something different.

The Minish Cap - Praised for its visuals and criticized for being too formulaic

I can agree on this.

Twilight Princess - A mixture of hype, disappointment, failure, success, acclaim and forgettability.

Totally disagree here. I thought the game was totally amazing. It's one downside was the story. So many plot holes and times I scratched my head going what the?? This makes zero sense, even in a crazy LoZ sense. But past that I really liked the game. Sure it was not perfect, and did not use the Wii waggle stick all the best, but I really liked it. Especially the aesthetics. I loved the semi-realism it brought tot he game.

Phantom Hourglass - It was super-derivative and you had to repeat the same dungeon 6 times

I can agree here and too much pointless fishing up treasures here too.

Spirit Tracks - Criticized by many for excessive backtracking and linear overworld

Not as bad as people made it out. But certainly not a great game either.

Skyward Sword - Criticized by many for excessive handholding, filler content and linearity

What you mention are not even the worst parts of the game. Sure Fi needed to shutup. And Other Zelda games have been more linear. Ocarina is very linear but no one complains about that. The issues with SS were:

• Needing to grind stuff in the game. Materials for upgrades, spirit things in those little spirit realm quests, bugs for potions etc etc. Totally not fun and very anti Zelda
• The Wii waggle stick failed to be responsive at the worst of times. Most notably in the mine cart race mini game.
• The stamina meter

The game was alright but far from perfect. Still very fun.

A Link Between Worlds - Was a strong return to form but also the least original title in the series.

The game got a lot of praise when it was released. A lot of people simply loved the game. And I don't think it was blind nostalgia like in Ocarina's case. I think this game though not perfect, is better than some peopel give it credit for.

You didn't mention Hyrule Warriors in this list. Any reason why?

What went wrong?

Nothing. Nintendo just kept trying new things for Zelda games. Some worked like the top down format and some didn't, like Cel shading and the Zelda 2 point system. And Nintendo are learning from this to make even better games. Also you need to take note that Aomuna has been taking a larger role in more modern Zelda games and Miyamoto less of a role. This fact alone will make the later Zelda games feel different.

Overall the later games are just different to the earlier ones. Not better or worse, just different.

 

[Iridescence]

[Zelda II] was amazing.

If you're okay with dying 1000 times and the monotony playing same level over and over.

Disagree again. Musically this game [A Link to the Past] set the standard and even today most Zelda games are just a rehash on Zelda 3 musically. Very little new music has come since Zelda 3. Past the music, the game is too cartoony for my liking and way too easy. Still a good game though.

All you got out of ALTTP was the music?

[Ocarina of Time] Perfect?

I said it WAS perfect. For it's time, relative to other games.

The game [The Wind Waker] is ok. Art style is a big mistake.

This is 2015 - not 2004. TWW's art is great. The debate is long over. We already won that bout.

The issues with SS were:

• The stamina meter

Of all things, one of your three major criticisms is the Stamina Bar?!? Making Link run faster was one of the few things that made this game an alright game rather than a great one?

You didn't mention Hyrule Warriors in this list. Any reason why?

It's not part of the official lore. It's a mediocre game, but on the other hand, it's better than the CDI games haha.

Nothing. Nintendo just kept trying new things for Zelda games.

They kept the formula in tact and decided to change certain aspects within the formula while keeping as similar to ALTTP/OOT as possible. Aside from new controls: ST, PH, TP and SS didn't innovate very much.

Yes, there's a difference between them and OOT/ALTTP but not nearly as big as the shift from Link's Awakening, to Ocarina to Majora to Wind Waker.

 

[SavageWizzrobe]

I have to agree with Iridescence here on most of the above points.

Zelda 2, as a game itself, isn't necessarily bad; it's okay. It's just not as good as most other Zelda games since it has very noticeable design problems. It appeals to a very particular crowd (including masochists and "pro" gamers), and it turns out there are very few Zelda fans that are also in this crowd.

As for ALttP, yes, it did have very good music, but I don't think its music has been overused in later Zelda titles. Furthermore, I don't play games just for their music, I play them for their gameplay as well. This is where I get into my unpopular opinion: I don't like ALttP that much. It's not an easy game, and most of its dungeons make me want to pull my hair out.

About OoT, when I was younger it was a perfect game. As I got older though, I started to see its flaws, from slow text to long, unskippable cutscenes. It's still my favourite Zelda game, but not by much. MM comes close.

As for art style, I don't really care too much about it. Graphics don't make a game to me. Rather, I'm more concerned as to how a particular game handles its art style. WW's art style is good because it fits the cheery, light-hearted atmosphere of the game.

And how is the stamina meter an issue in SS? It really added realism to the game, making it more immersive, and hence a better game.

Oh yeah, and Hyrule Warriors is more of a spin-off than a canonical Zelda game, much like Link's Crossbow Training.

 

[Mr. Ister]

Calling MM a OoT clone is basically just saying you've never played MM before.

 

[Iridescence]

And how is the stamina meter an issue in SS? It really added realism to the game, making it more immersive, and hence a better game.

I really disagree with how some Zelda fans choose to critique the games. They say X game is an eehhh alright game instead of an amazing one like the others, but all of their critiques feel like nitpicks. Most likely it has to do more with grander things. Like the game's overall pacing and overworld? Or with the player. I suspect the reason why many don't like SS as much as TP is because they've grown up a bit.

It's much easier to impress a 15 year old in 2006 than a 20 year old in 2011

 

[SavageWizzrobe]

I really disagree with how some Zelda fans choose to critique the games. They say X game is an eehhh alright game instead of an amazing one like the others, but all of their critiques feel like nitpicks. Most likely it has to do more with grander things. Like the game's overall pacing and overworld? Or with the player. I suspect the reason why many don't like SS as much as TP is because they've grown up a bit.

It's much easier to impress a 15 year old in 2006 than a 20 year old in 2011

Maybe, but I'm one of those fans who actually likes SS more than TP, since I first played TP at age 17 and then SS at age 20. However, I had already done most of my growing up by age 17 anyway, so as far as maturity goes, I wasn't that different between 17 and 20 (if I could've started college at age 17, I would've)

Anyway, I think your maturity argument holds for me especially when considering OoT and MM. I was maybe age 10 or even younger when I played OoT for the first time, and maybe 11 or 12 when I started playing MM. I initially didn't enjoy MM as much as OoT because of the time constraint and the saving system, but as I got older (mid-late teens, early 20s) MM started to grow on me, while OoT lost some of its magic. I got over the gripes I had about MM's time constraint and I saw characters that had lives that in 3 days would end. I noticed the importance of time management and the dark undertones that I didn't pick up on when I first played the game. I still haven't completely gotten over the saving system, (memories of lost saved data from owl statues...fun times!) but this a nitpick. MM is an awesome game, definitely rivalling OoT.

I guess if you have nitpicks with a particular Zelda game, there's a severity associated with each nitpick. Nitpick severity is subjective, but I'll give a few examples of my own...

ALttP: a bit hard (minor to moderate nitpick), multiple annoying dungeons and bosses (major nitpick)
OoT: slow text, lots of long and/or unskippable cutscenes (minor nitpicks)
MM: saving at owl statues (minor to moderate nitpick), unskippable cutscenes (minor nitpick)
WW: sailing takes some time, a bit easy (minor nitpicks), a tedious section (moderate nitpick)
TP: a bit easy, items not used well (minor nitpicks), multiple tedious sections (moderate to major nitpick)
SS: disconnected overworld (minor nitpick), a few tedious boss fights (moderate nitpick)

 

[Farore's Chosen]

And how is the stamina meter an issue in SS? It really added realism to the game, making it more immersive, and hence a better game.

Because it's an obnoxious hassle and a pointless addition. Link slows down and acts like he's gonna keel over and die in the worst possible areas. The stamina bar is a melon slice and a very small one. I can't tell you how many times I've died in the quicksand or failed in the stupid silent realms, running from the guardians cuz he's moving like pond scum.

As for old vs. new, they all have there good points and there bad and everyone will like some games and not others, there's something for everyone's taste in this series and its gotten stale. But what do you expect from such a long running franchise? The game makers have to strike the right balance of key elements and fresh ideas. That's probably not easy to do and I'm pretty sure they know not to listen or give in to Everyone's nitpicks. They've been in business for a very long time.

 

[the8thark]

If you're okay with dying 1000 times and the monotony playing same level over and over.

Well I don't see the dying 1000 times over. I die at most 2-3x in the whole game. And that's all at thunderbird if I get unlucky there or if I need more magic while doing the fairy key glitch. I don't find the game all that hard. Just me though.

All you got out of ALTTP was the music?

The music is the best part of Zelda 3. In my opinion. I feel other parts of the game are sub par.

I said it WAS perfect. For it's time, relative to other games.

The game was never perfect. Even on the day of it's release. Only people with rose coloured nostalgia glasses can't see this. It's a good game but was never perfect.

This is 2015 - not 2004. TWW's art is great. The debate is long over. We already won that bout.

There is no war here. Some people like the graphic style and others do not. And I do not. End of story really.

Of all things, one of your three major criticisms is the Stamina Bar?!? Making Link run faster was one of the few things that made this game an alright game rather than a great one?

The stamina bar just artificially limited Link so he could not do basic things that you could easily do in most other Zelda games. It was a hinderance.

It's not part of the official lore. It's a mediocre game, but on the other hand, it's better than the CDI games haha.

Yes it's not canon. But it's still worthy of a mention as it's a damn fine game.

They kept the formula in tact and decided to change certain aspects within the formula while keeping as similar to ALTTP/OOT as possible. Aside from new controls: ST, PH, TP and SS didn't innovate very much.

Yes, there's a difference between them and OOT/ALTTP but not nearly as big as the shift from Link's Awakening, to Ocarina to Majora to Wind Waker.

I feel Ocarina had very little innovation in it. Just a basic evolution from Zelda 3. And Zelda 3 in turn was just a basic evolution on Zelda 1. Zelda 2 and MM had the most innovation in the series. And one could say WW's cel shading was an innovative way to do graphics. Zelda 2 and WW were the wrong direction. MM was the right direction, but for that game only, I don't think an direct MM sequel with another 3 day mechanic would sell well.

 

[SavageWizzrobe]

Well I don't see the dying 1000 times over. I die at most 2-3x in the whole game. And that's all at thunderbird if I get unlucky there or if I need more magic while doing the fairy key glitch. I don't find the game all that hard. Just me though.

OK, so I guess you're a pro AoL player? Cool. I always thought the dying 1000 times during the game was an exaggeration. Maybe I died 50 or so times the first time I played the game, and I consider myself a decent gamer. Now, maybe I'd die 10 times or less in a playthrough. Regardless, I think the game is brutal.

The music is the best part of Zelda 3. In my opinion. I feel other parts of the game are sub par.

I partially agree with you here. I do think ALttP's music is the best part of the game, and I liked its art style. However, you say the game is too easy, and that's where I disagree. ALttP is a hard game to the point of most bosses and dungeons being frustrating, and considering that the game is mostly dungeons, I don't really like that.

The game was never perfect. Even on the day of it's release. Only people with rose coloured nostalgia glasses can't see this. It's a good game but was never perfect.

I agree with you here, but I have to add that when I first played the game as a 10-year-old back then, I didn't yet see the flaws, so I once thought the game was perfect. After I got older, I took the "nostalgia glasses" off and noticed problems.

There is no war here. Some people like the graphic style and others do not. And I do not. End of story really.

I disagree with you here, but that's totally fine. Graphics don't make a game.

The stamina bar just artificially limited Link so he could not do basic things that you could easily do in most other Zelda games. It was a hinderance.

True when you consider rolling and spin attacks, but I disagree that it was a hinderance. Rolling everywhere felt a bit clunky anyway, so I liked it that Link could finally run. Furthermore, it added not only realism but also strategy: you have to manage your stamina, so you can't spam spin attacks for example.

Yes it's not canon. But it's still worthy of a mention as it's a damn fine game.

I don't have too much to say here, as I haven't played it. It may not be canonical, but that doesn't imply it's a bad game.

I feel Ocarina had very little innovation in it. Just a basic evolution from Zelda 3. And Zelda 3 in turn was just a basic evolution on Zelda 1. Zelda 2 and MM had the most innovation in the series. And one could say WW's cel shading was an innovative way to do graphics. Zelda 2 and WW were the wrong direction. MM was the right direction, but for that game only, I don't think an direct MM sequel with another 3 day mechanic would sell well.

Part of this I agree with, part of this I don't. Granted, ALttP may have been a basic evolution of LoZ, but how can you call the extension from 2D to 3D a "basic evolution?" Adding a dimension isn't the easiest thing to do from a programming standpoint. Furthermore, I don't understand how you dismiss OoT as lacking innovation. It's the first 3D Zelda game, and that's a significant milestone in terms of innovation. Not to mention its targeting system, which has been borrowed in a lot of games. Other than that, I don't think WW went in the wrong direction, just a different direction (granted, it was too easy).