General Zelda How Do You Compare/Contrast Zelda Games?

[Justac00lguy]

So even though we're all Zelda fans here we all have our favorites and least favorites and to be honest a lot of us can get in some heated debates on when discussing games in and I think it's good sometimes that we can have such discussions within the interior of the series itself.

There have been 16 games in the series and in most cases each are unique in their own right, to be honest sometimes it can be hard to define just what a Zelda game it. In my opinion this really makes it hard when comparing which Zelda game is inferior or deciding the best aspects within the games. So how do you go about making comparisons between games and deciding the ranking of each individual game?

 

[Ventus]

I take the pinnacles of the series (OoT and MM) and compare the rest to them. There's nothing else to be said, really; I don't judge Zelda titles on their own merits anymore because I'm a gold dish eater. After all, Zelda titles are not BROKEN dishes, they're just bronze/silver/gold dishes.

 

[DarkestLink]

Gameplay/Combat>Mainquest>Sidequests>Graphics>Story>Sound>Difficulty. I've given up on difficulty. It's not gonna happen.

 

[Spirit]

I go for hardware in how i compare and contrast.

I'm not going to contrast LA on the original gameboy with WW on the GC and try and deciide which is better becuase it isn't fair at all.
We all have expectations of certain consoles too which either limits or enhances what we want a game to do.

Though with only one Zelda game on most consoles i lump them into eras too and then 3D and 2D.

To be honest though i dont compare Zelda games all that much, if i complain about a Zelda game its the game itself not because it is better or worse than another gsame but because the game itself doesn't sit right with me, though i dislike it when a game comes out that doesn't have elements formt he previous game, for example SS doesn't have hidden skills, or a day and nigt cycle yet TP does, why not?
Games that follow in the 3D realms and the modern era of Zelda should be the last game and then some, sequels should always build on what came before, its saddening that SS isn't more than TP, but outside of that i have problems with SS on its own more so than when i compare it to other games.

 

[Ventus]

Games that follow in the 3D realms and the modern era of Zelda should be the last game and then some, sequels should always build on what came before, its saddening that SS isn't more than TP, but outside of that i have problems with SS on its own more so than when i compare it to other games.

I like the way Spirit compares titles though I confess that I can rarely judge a game on its own merits; I always have some sort of reference point and see how precise other titles are to said point while still having some nice differences. :yes:

 

[Azure Sage]

I go by which I enjoyed more. It's that simple. The order I have in my signature is the order I enjoyed the games. That's the only way I'd compare Zelda games. I prefer to judge them separately. To me, each Zelda game is like it's own entity. They're all different, and they all have different things going for them. So, that's the way I judge them; as different games. The order I give them is simply based on which game I've enjoyed more.

 

[Keeseman]

I go by how artistic they were.

Making games is an art, or at least, that's how I see it. How the devs combine gameplay and difficulty with visuals and music with characters and plot can add up to one huge masterpiece - or one huge piece of crap. Fortunately for me, none of the Zelda games have ever been bad enough to be deemed the latter.

Games, however, can be limited by their available materials. The music in tLoZ did not sound as good as aLttP, which did not sound as good as that in OoT. This also applies to visuals too, of course; whatever a system can handle limits the painting the devs can create. But that does not mean that a game must be any less beautiful.

For example, I believe that aLttP is greater than or equal to OoT and MM, which are > TP. Even though Nintendo had more freedom for visuals and music on the Wii than they did on the 64, which had more power than the Super Nintendo, I have to look at all of the artistic aspects of gaming.

In the case of aLttP > OoT = MM, I found aLttP more challenging, and non-linearity also had something to do with it. Those games are all pretty close together in awesomesauceness for me, though, so in the case of OoT/MM > TP, I find that the plot, characters, difficulty, and gameplay are all greater than that of TP, which had great visuals and music for the most part (not always, though... CitS, anyone?).

So, that's how I compare my Zelda games. I give the Nintendo a chance to use the tools they had before them, and if it is awesome (which is typically the case), then hell yes! It was a great Zelda game! If not, then Nintendo didn't make as beautiful a painting that time. But bad art can be forgiven, and even the greatest can make mistakes...

 

[CynicalSquid]

Gameplay/Combat>Mainquest>Sidequests>Graphics>Story>Sound>Difficulty. I've given up on difficulty. It's not gonna happen.

Basically this.

I feel like every Zelda game is unique and good in it's own way, but when I compare them I usually do it the same way DarkestLink does.

It's not because I gave up on difficulty though. I just don't feel like it's important.

 

[The Jade Fist]

Its a hard question to answer.
But i try to judge each game on its own rights and its inspirations. (such as if it tries to copy something but does it worse or better)
The Controls
The Gameplay
The Flow of the Game
The Music and Art style
The Story

In that order

And over all how I felt after the end of the game and how well i felt the different aspects of the game tied together.

 

[JuicieJ]

Simply put, by how refined the mechanics are and how much the games are affected by their flaws.

 

[Skittles]

Basically, Immersion. Thus: Story>Characters>Music>Gameplay>Graphics (as an Artistic medium)>Difficulty. Because different things matter most to different people, and I really like a game to draw me in with it's story. I know that some people don't like TWW because it's too easy (which is true) or the sailing (I personally liked that aspect, but I like ships and sailing), what I love about that game (and others) is how much I get to know the characters and interact with them and how fun I find the game in itself. I'm not denying that it and other games have flaws, because they all do. I can think of a thousand things I would change about WW, aLttP, MM, etc., but that doesn't mean I like the games any less because it happens to be 'flawed' in some way.

Flaws can add to a games character. And honestly, it's not like we should expect them to be perfect anyways...

 

[HylianHero]

I don't have a mathematical formula for analyzing how good a Zelda game is. I try not to make any lists comparing how good the games are, because I don't think I (or anyone) can make any claims to having a definite, indisputable list of Zelda games in order of greatness. I have a list of how the games rank as my favorites but nothing other than that.