• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

General Zelda Intricacy or Difficulty?

So a simple thread here; in a time where Zelda games are far too easy and simple, which aspect of previous games such as difficulty and intricacy would you like to make a return to enhance the challenge?

For example, while some Zelda games have been harsh with the difficulty like unforgiving AoL and the sometimes challenging ALttP, others like MM pushed the degree of intricacy within the series, MM's numerous and repeating side quests, dungeon visits and time travelling mechanic coupled with the fact that you couldnt be everywhere at once to get everything done the first time could be pretty overwhelming...

But which of these elements do you prefer and which would you like to see again?
Would you like the traditional difficulty of rough enemies and hard to clear hazards?
Or would you like to be forced to think and plot your next move before making it because there is just so much to do that causes a knock on effect?

don't say both, gimmie some discussion.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Difficulty is far better than intricacy in my opinion. I'd much rather have to claw through dirt and rock than time the right jumps through hurdles, duck underneath flaming trees, et cetera. What I'm getting at is that, with intricacy you can basically do it once then memorize it all the way through. Difficulty makes it so you have to try even after clearing the game once; there's no gambit that lets you take it all.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Location
Monkey Island
I'd say difficulty. Challenge makes things more fun. I find timed challenges, when you're given just barely enough time to run away from a boss, complete a puzzle before the ceiling crushes you, etc to really test my gaming skills and be exhilarating at the same time. They never did anything like that in Zelda, as far as I'm concerned...they had the concept in the Twilight Palace in TP, where the hand was "chasing" you, but the hand moved at a snail's pace so it was a cakewalk. Also when the tower was falling down at the end of OoT, but that was way too much time as well.

I don't know if you can ever make Zelda a "hard" game without putting some sort of time limit...I mean, you can pretty much figure out any puzzle if you think about it long enough (and a lot of people use walkthroughs). That, and making the enemies tougher/giving you less extra lives. I felt like some of the fighting sequences in SS could've been pretty hard, if there weren't so many pots lying around/bottles with potions you could use. Seriously, by the time you have 10 lives and 2 bottles filled with red potion, its nearly impossible to die 'cause you get so much leeway. That lack of challenge takes some excitement out.

Another way Zelda could be made more difficult is to add more platforming elements. I found a lot of sequences in SMG2 a nice challenge.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
In a series like Zelda, challenge through depth will always -- ALWAYS -- be the best option. It's a series that aims itself to a broad audience, and is not fitting for challenge through cheapness as a result. That kind of challenge belongs to games like Dark Souls where the entire purpose of the game is to have insanely cheap levels of difficulty in order to frustrate the hell out of you. The kind of difficulty seen in Spirit Tracks and Skyward Sword is the perfect example as to what Zelda's base challenge level should be.

Needless to say, intricacy is the best way to go for the Zelda franchise.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
Nouu but I wanna say both :P

Such a hard question but I will go with difficulty. Something that a lot of the 3D era games of Zelda have lacked since making the transition, now maybe this is due to the refinement's through time as well as easier controls but it seems that a lot of the 3D games have lacked a true challenge. Now I wouldn't go as far as some people and say they are "childishly easy" as there are some gameplay elements that can test a player but I think the difficulty could be turned up a few notches.

Making enemies both smarter and make them deal more damage is an easy route to go but I would also like to see a variety of enemies so each time we encounter one it will fresh and not repetitive. Dungeons should also be made more difficult, since dungeons are the main gameplay elements that test Links ability there should be lots of changes to make dungeons seem both different and challenging. Bosses again like enemies need to be smarter and deal more damage however with bosses you can implement strategic movements and a variety of attacks to confuse the player as well as making weakspots lees clear. Lastly I think the puzzle element of Zelda games should be more difficult, one of my favorite things that I enjoyed when I first started playing Zelda was when I used to get stuck and had to think about solving set puzzle in order to advance. Now though we get very similar and easy puzzle designs so to counter this maybe add more unique and a variety of puzzles to give a new fresh was of thinking.
 

Random Person

Just Some Random Person
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Wig-Or-Log
From far away, challenge seems like the better option, but I think I actually prefer intricacy. *Goes to look up word* With the intricacy of MM I was always on my toes... on the lookout for the solution of that one puzzle I saw at the beginning but still haven't found a solution to. The puzzles weren't "solve this and you got it," figuring out how to solve it and how it effected the game and if you solved it correctly AND if you should solve it again... kept the player thinking. It can feel a bit cheesy when you run into something like a sign that says "come back later" or "do it again for another prize" but it keeps me on my toes more. I will admit that intricacy has less replay value than difficulty but there are ways to keep replayability (not a word) with intricacy, you'd just have to reach out in other areas. When puzzles come together in the long run, I get a more satisfying feel than something I had to grind through alone. (I HATE YOU ROLL GOAL!) It just feels more deep to me, like the creators thought things out a little more and better.
 

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Ohio
I guess I would say intricacy more than difficulty, but I would like difficulty arising from intricacy. I didn't really have fun with Adventure of Link's brand of difficulty (I enjoyed the game for other reasons), and I really enjoyed both ALTTP and MM for their difficulty. I definitely want the series to focus on mind-bending puzzles more than combat- if Zelda could integrate Professor Layton type puzzles into the gameplay at a greater frequency that would be awesome for me. Another way of looking at it is that I want another Zelda game like Oracle of Ages. So I guess it is intricacy for me.
 

Igos du Ikana

Maldorok
Joined
Oct 13, 2012
Location
USA
Well, since it's been awhile since we've actually had a "hard" Zelda game, I would prefer getting one that's a bit difficult. Not that I don't like the puzzles and complexity of them, it's just that those things by themselves after so many times will eventually grow boring/stale, leaving you with a sense of un-accomplishment. To be honest, I actually hated how hard the first few Zelda's were, but now I wish there was a little bit left.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
We don't need either. and shouldn't expect either Both of these are very overrated and the reason Zelda does so well is because it goes without both. Having some more difficult sidequests like Cave of Ordeals, Lighting Round, and Take em All On are fine. The reason I find myself not replaying AoL or aLttP is because it's just annoyingly difficult. It was a nice challenge, but it's not something I want to do more than once.

Difficulty in sidequests is fine when players want a challenge, but in the main quest, it usually just disrupts the fun. Another game that comes to mind is Sticker Star...hardest Paper Mario...but also the least fun. The real problem is that Nintendo also refuses to do hard puzzles.

Fact is, children are the target audience and Nintendo wants them all to beat this game...but casuals get frustrated easily. One game over could lead them to quitting the game. In the end, it's more of a question of whether we might be lucky enough to get smart enemies that hit us, like in TP or strong enemies that knock a lot of health out of us like in tWW. But we won't get both.
 
I'd say difficult intricacy. Just difficulty gets very repetitive very fast; just intricacy makes for a pretty game with not much else to it. I'd want more focus on the intricacy, though. Having to hack and slash your way through numerous thickets of enemies, tough or weak, is exceedingly boring.
 

ThePurpleKnight

ThePurpleKnightmare
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Location
Canada
I think easy is okay, Link moves far too slow to add difficulty to zelda, he can't even jump so really, if monsters got more difficult then the game would suck, and I've always hated puzzles that are difficult to do control wise.
 

SpiritGerudo

Flamey-o, Hotman!
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Location
Halfway There
I know I've complained a lot about how easy SS is, but looking back on it now, I realize I've changed my opinion. I don't think difficulty is extremely important, what really matters is if you can enjoy what you are doing. While my favorite game is hands down Majora's Mask, I actually play OoT more often just because it's easier to play for me. It's easy just to pick up and play the game and enjoy what I'm doing. I don't think anyone can really argue that when you have too much difficulty with something, you don't really want to do it; you really want to do what you're good at. This is why I value intricacy over difficulty, because when you add intricacy to something it has a lot of potential to make the game more fun and interesting, but will rarely make it to the point of frustration, when you want to play the game less, like upping the difficulty will often times.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
I know I've complained a lot about how easy SS is, but looking back on it now, I realize I've changed my opinion. I don't think difficulty is extremely important, what really matters is if you can enjoy what you are doing. While my favorite game is hands down Majora's Mask, I actually play OoT more often just because it's easier to play for me. It's easy just to pick up and play the game and enjoy what I'm doing. I don't think anyone can really argue that when you have too much difficulty with something, you don't really want to do it; you really want to do what you're good at. This is why I value intricacy over difficulty, because when you add intricacy to something it has a lot of potential to make the game more fun and interesting, but will rarely make it to the point of frustration, when you want to play the game less, like upping the difficulty will often times.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have here one of the finest examples of why Zelda is long overdue on difficulty settings. Give this lady a hand.
 

misskitten

Hello Sweetie!
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Location
Norway
With difficulty, I find balance to be important. Too difficult and you may find yourself stuck somewhere and after a certain amount of attempts feel inclined to just stop playing altogether. Too easy and it becomes a dissapointment. I don't mind having to tune my skills to get through something, but I need to get a chance to actually get into the game first - that was AoL's biggest mistake. It was too hard from the get-go. You didn't get a chance to go anywhere before you got killed.

I enjoy intricacy, but that also needs a certain amount of balance. If the puzzle is too confusing in the beginning, it can be just as off-putting as constantly getting killed right away. You need some kind of learning curve, a few simple tasks to get you started, get you into the right mind of thinking, then up the complexity once a player is getting warm. What I enjoyed immensely with SS was the fact that simple hack and slash wasn't enough when encountering even simple enemies. You had to pay attention to their movement, their weak spots and had to maneuver the sword the right way at the right time, that made it more fun. But Girahim was an unfortunate choice as the first boss - story-wise I get it, but he required a lot more finesse than several of the bosses that followed. Sure, he didn't kill you during the first bit, but it was rather annoying trying to fine-tune movements to that degree so early in the game, and it felt like it was taking forever.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom