General Zelda Gameplay First

[Spirit]

Here is a question on a topic we all know about; Nintendo always say that gameplay comes first in Zelda and Aonuma has said himself that story is nothing more than an appendix to the games themselves. This is fair enough, gameplay should be the most important thing about game development and the actual playing of them...

however, the mechanics of Zelda games be they 2D and 3D rarely changes, we're still playing 3D Zelda and 2D Zelda much in the same ways that we were since their inception.

With so much focus apparently being delivered into the gameplay aspect of the games, even though little changes gameplay-wise from game to game, does it feel like Nintendo are doing enough in the gameplay department?

Are the slight changes in gameplay and mechanics between each game enough to warrant nintendo seemingly throwing caution to the wind with story among other things in the name of gameplay first?

In short, is enough being done in the gameplay department of Zelda or not?
Would anything be different if nintendo were to even their attention onto everything like gameplay and story?

 

[Ventus]

No, gameplay is not being handled like it should be. Nintendo is looking more specifically at the play part of gameplay; in other words they are targeting the control scheme as of late. Why is that? They've pretty much perfected the game portion with Ocarina of Time, so why not experiment with technology?<-- is apparently what they're thinking.

Honestly, if Nintendo placed even attention on story and gameplay, I figure they would just scrap the series altogether else start huge amounts of retconning. It doesn't take a good writer (or even a half-baked one) to note the series has a craptastic story both individually and as a whole. To fix that requires an immense amount of work if you're looking for blockbuster stories, or some minor (but time-consuming) edits regarding animation, text, and general layout of stories. :I

So, I guess it's best for the series to stay as it is and let Nintendo do their thing, no matter how painful it might be to some players on the field.

 

[SpiritGerudo]

I say no, they're not doing enough in terms of gameplay to vary the series from game to game. I feel like they're trying to stick to one gameplay style too much, and then then they have to come up with a story to fit it, when in my opinion it should be the other way around. This results in, as Ventus said, "It doesn't take a good writer (or even a half-baked one) to note the series has a craptastic story both individually and as a whole." Although I don't think this goes for all games in the series, as some of them have quite un-craptastic stories, but the point is that they stick to the same formula and fit the story to match it. They are limited to a story that requires fetching multiple objects in a set (or, in some cases, rescuing people) and going to dungeons to do this. That's what they use for gameplay, and then then they have to come up with a story that incorporates that into it. The story is molded to fit the lines of the already-made gameplay, which makes the series monotonous and uniform.

To me, the most fun video game would be more like an interactive story, not a lot of tactical button pushing with a story on the side. Gameplay should be created in order to move the story along, not the other way around like it is now. If Nintendo were to come up with a rich story for the game, and then just make the story playable, I think the games would become instantly better paced and more eloquent.

In short, it's better to come up with gameplay to suit a story than to try to superimpose a weak story onto one already used WAY to many times, created by 25 years of unvaried gameplay.

 

[DarkestLink]

...They're just doing it wrong is the problem. There's too much varying and not enough improvement.

 

[Ventus]

...They're just doing it wrong is the problem. There's too much varying and not enough improvement.

No, the core Zelda gameplay as SpiritGerudo noted is unvaried". We are, again as she stated, going through the same dungeons in a made-to-fit story. The game part is strictly static—has been since A Link to the Past. What is actually varying is the play like I said earlier; they are experimenting far too much with the control scheme but that doesn't change WHAT we're doing, just HOW we're doing it.

I wholly agree with the not improving comment, though.

 

[ihateghirahim]

I think we have enough decent gamplay mechanics. SS and its motion controls show beyond all doubt Nintendo is focusing in Gampelay. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo does care about the franchise getting stale. At the same time, they are respecting tradition and creating a sense of uniformity. I'm content with a certain level of sameness to keep Zelda going but at the same recall the train mechanics in ST, the new items, wolf mechanics, and expanded riding abilities of TP, the boat and cannon techniques of WW, the three-day cycle of MM, and the entire starting point of 3D Zelda in OoT. These are just some of the new mechanics these games brought to the table. We might have individual complaints about small things we thought have been done too often or things we want to see, but overall (I just remembered that new paper mechanic in Alttp2) Nintendo is innovating with the gameplay.