Is Change Really All That Bad?

[Ronin]

Earlier today I read a post that caught my attention and got me thinking. It made the point that the reason Nintendo's development team of the Legend of Zelda isn't afraid of change is the very reason that the series is continually successful. If they hadn't tried to expand on the grounds of the formula after it was first established, then Zelda would've died off long ago from being stagnant and redundant.

This brought a question to mind: If the developers are unafraid about altering the formula, then what are the fans concerned about? The way I see it, any reservations I have are justified by knowing that the games aren't constantly being rehashed in each new release. Granted, the formula might still be essentially the same at its core, but I see Nintendo moving constantly moving on to fresher and bigger things. They sort of balance out the new and the old so that everyone can be satisfied, barely ever making an added exponent surpass one that was used before.

Do any of you agree that, without some slight change to the formula in a different Zelda title, the series would eventually become monotonous? If you don't agree, then why would change seem/be bad to you?

 

[JuicieJ]

I don't know why Zelda fans are so afraid of change. They're oftentimes literally violent about it not changing. If it's change for the better, let it happen. There's no reason to not want a series to improve.

 

[Majora's Cat]

I would change a few things. I don't feel like typing them all over again, so I'll use this. And yes, I support change in the franchise to an extent.

 

[Azure Sage]

Personally, I'm all for change. I would love to see a Zelda game with around 85% new and 15% old. I can understand why so many Zelda fans would be afraid of change. If the changes don't turn out to be any good, then it would most likely upset many fans. A lot of fans seem to be paranoid that the changes won't be any good, and when the game comes around, half the fanbase loves it and the other half hates it. If Nintendo can find an equilibrium for this, I think it would make the game that much better. However, it would be difficult to find that equilibrium. After all, the Zelda fanbase is generally unpleasable.

 

[Seth]

I think it's important to consider what kind of change and degree of change we are discussing here. I don't agree that many Zelda fans are afraid of change in general, what they are afraid of is changes to parts of the series that shouldn't be changed. Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for Zelda fans there, but it's how I feel anyways.

As an extreme example, we wouldn't want the next Zelda title to be a space battle adventure, would we? Obviously Nintendo wouldn't do that but the point I am making is that we have to balance innovation with keeping true to the series. I think SS came up short in one regard to this, it's idea for puzzles in the overworld was unique but it needs to be developed better. I felt it became overly linear and choked out what makes Zelda great; exploration. TP did that in a different way by blocking out huge areas of the map that we would have to unlock after hours of gameplay. Even when OoT blocked off areas it still left a lot you could explore. When you reach Hyrule Field the first time you can go to Lon Lon Ranch, Castle Town, Kakariko, Lake Hylia etc. In TP and SS we were left with just one area really to explore.

So change for the sake of change isn't always good, but it is important for the series to grow and develop. SS did add a lot of cool concepts, the motion controls worked fantastically and I loved the item and rupee system. That being said we also have to keep site of the traditional Zelda formula to an extant because after all if you make the series unrecognizable then why bother slapping the Zelda name on it?

 

[DeletedUser9]

Earlier today I read a post that caught my attention and got me thinking. It made the point that the reason Nintendo's development team of the Legend of Zelda isn't afraid of change is the very reason that the series is continually successful. If they hadn't tried to expand on the grounds of the formula after it was first established, then Zelda would've died off long ago from being stagnant and redundant.

This brought a question to mind: If the developers are unafraid about altering the formula, then what are the fans concerned about? The way I see it, any reservations I have are justified by knowing that the games aren't constantly being rehashed in each new release. Granted, the formula might still be essentially the same at its core, but I see Nintendo moving constantly moving on to fresher and bigger things. They sort of balance out the new and the old so that everyone can be satisfied, barely ever making an added exponent surpass one that was used before.

Do any of you agree that, without some slight change to the formula in a different Zelda title, the series would eventually become monotonous? If you don't agree, then why would change seem/be bad to you?

No, I don't agree. Recreating the exact same formula with different levels is a valid game design tactic at least if you're copying off your own ideas, and people significantly overplay the necessity of change.

Furthermore, I think if anyone thinks that Zelda actually changes significantly from game to game, then they are being naive. The Zelda series does stay pretty much the same, all the time. I'm aware you said the core stays the same except for them changing some stuff, but honestly most of their changes are superficial and fall in line with that core, and while they mark some change, it's very, very minor to the point where, effectively, the series hasn't altered.

I don't think this is inherently bad, and I'll still be buying games, but I do think Nintendo should loosen this and experiment more with things that are irrelevant to the core.

I think it's important to consider what kind of change and degree of change we are discussing here. I don't agree that many Zelda fans are afraid of change in general, what they are afraid of is changes to parts of the series that shouldn't be changed. Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for Zelda fans there, but it's how I feel anyways.

As an extreme example, we wouldn't want the next Zelda title to be a space battle adventure, would we? Obviously Nintendo wouldn't do that but the point I am making is that we have to balance innovation with keeping true to the series. I think SS came up short in one regard to this, it's idea for puzzles in the overworld was unique but it needs to be developed better. I felt it became overly linear and choked out what makes Zelda great; exploration. TP did that in a different way by blocking out huge areas of the map that we would have to unlock after hours of gameplay. Even when OoT blocked off areas it still left a lot you could explore. When you reach Hyrule Field the first time you can go to Lon Lon Ranch, Castle Town, Kakariko, Lake Hylia etc. In TP and SS we were left with just one area really to explore.

So change for the sake of change isn't always good, but it is important for the series to grow and develop. SS did add a lot of cool concepts, the motion controls worked fantastically and I loved the item and rupee system. That being said we also have to keep site of the traditional Zelda formula to an extant because after all if you make the series unrecognizable then why bother slapping the Zelda name on it?

I agree with you to a point that there are parts that shouldn't be changed, but I don't think most people have a reasonable definition of what that entails, and more often than not fail to be in any way intelligent or objective in determining what actually harms the series, as shown by a constant outcry at every proposed new idea over the last 10 years of the series that no one minded when the game came out. As a result, I do not agree with you many Zelda fans aren't afraid of change... I think they are. Not because they don't like change in itself, but because they have no rational concept of the distinction between good and bad change.

There is a major sense of black and white in the eyes of a large number of Zelda fans, something that has been proven to me time and time again in conversations like "guns in Zelda", in which you just mention the idea of a firearm and suddenly everyone pictures a modern handgun instead of, you know, a medieval gun, and says they're "too modern" or would turn Zelda into a shooter. These are not rational concerns.

Since you brought up Skyward Sword, I agree with you about the linearity problems. Main thing is, although it changed form, I mostly consider that a holdover from Twilight Princess, and to a lesser degree The Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time (I definitely agree they didn't do this nearly as badly, but they still irked me in similar ways, just to a far, far lesser degree). With that in mind, I really liked Skyward Sword's balance, because it really changed the method of input in a drastic way, but behind that the gameplay is almost exactly the same. It did similar things throughout the game, redefining old ideas but still keeping those ideas. It gives me hope for future Zelda games, especially if they start recovering from the linearity problems, among other holdovers from the series' recent decline.

 

[Random Person]

I'm going to reiterate what some people said. I indeed believe that a good many of Zelda fans are afraid of change. I, myself, am not afraid of change in general. But there is a good way and a bad way to do any idea. For gaming franchises, you don't want to change core values of the games, because people come to expect those values. Of course, that leaves the question of what core values are? I'd say, what makes people enjoy the series most. In Zelda, people enjoy the series mainly for the puzzle solving, exploration, innovation, catchy yet fitting music, and story. I believe if you change any of these concepts, you're going down a bad path because the game's relation to the series is going down. Should games appeal to more people? Yes, but if its at the cost of losing your current fans, that's a double edged sword with the side pointing at you doing more damage. I even think there's a way to make Zelda in space as long as it sticks to these key elements, but there are many other ways to mess this up which is why attempting it probably wouldn't be the best idea. WW, TP and ST showed me that change to the outside of the series is good. Its when core ideas are changed, like in SS, that my teeth start grinding.

 

[The Wanderer]

I've actually written an entire article (that no one's seen...yet) about this issue. Video game progression has its own yin and yang: experimentation and simple improvement. Experimentation is trying drastically new things to see what works. Simple improvement is fine-tuning each aspect until it shines. Too much of either typically results in negative things. Too much simple improvement and not enough experimentation yields Pokemon and Call of Duty, which generally change very little from title to title. The result is usually a bunch of new items of some sort - more battle monsters, more guns, more stages. But the gameplay doesn't actually change all that much aside from minute refinements.

Too much experimentation, though, often creates a bunch of pretty good products without any universally-accepted masterpieces (such as Ocarina of Time). Each new experiment comes with its own inherent flaws, and without simple improvement to iron them out, franchises can lose their luster and, in the process, lose some fans. Another common side-effect of too much experimentation is a significant move away from the series' formula, which is usually what made the series great to begin with.

I think Zelda is stuck in too great a cycle of experimentation; I thought Skyward Sword was an excellent Zelda game, but it clearly isn't the Ocarina of Time of this era. Change is normally a good thing, but too much of it can create chaos, not to mention a series with no true masterpieces. This is why these days, I myself dread the word "change" in the Zelda series to a certain extent. Ocarina of Time, when you think about it, had no real gameplay gimmicks aside from being the first 3D Zelda game. Link didn't sail, or turn into a wolf, or fly on a bird above a linear overworld, or shrink to the size of an ant, or any of that. It just made the best use it could of the classic Zelda formula, and it's been one of the most influential games of all time as a result. Now, if every Zelda game had that as its focus, the series would have drifted into obscurity regardless. That's why change is a good thing. It can just become a bad thing when you don't stop to improve on what you've started before moving on to the next experiment.

I'd really love for the next game in the series to return to its roots as the epitome of exploration, and rather than introducing major new concepts to alter the gameplay (like sailing), perhaps some smaller but still significant changes to make it flow better and play differently. Change is not bad unless its yang is not considered.

As for concepts like a modern-day Zelda or a Zelda racing game (as seen on one particular thread on this board), I'm usually indifferent. I don't fear change in the way the average person does. Still, it's not completely an irrational fear. Why do people fear the dark? Because they don't know what to expect from it. For most fans of Zelda, major change is like hearing someone slowly walk toward you in a pitch-black, isolated room, only to realize it's just your mother. The unknown turned out to be a good thing, but a lot of fans don't like having to go through the suspense to find out.

 

[Ventus]

If the developers are unafraid about altering the formula, then what are the fans concerned about?

I'm not speaking for "the fans" but rather for myself; what I am afraid of is the devs taking a wrong turn with "change", and they've already proven themselves to have taken many wrong turns. Change in and of itself is not inherently bad, but with the emotional response people have towards certain changes, they can be viewed at least in a few points of view as "bad". Correct term is "differing from what expectations were dying for", but whatever.

Do any of you agree that, without some slight change to the formula in a different Zelda title, the series would eventually become monotonous?

Yes and no. Already the series has been viewed as "CC OoT", that is, carbon copied OoT, since the release of Wind Waker. Even with SOME changes, the series according to a few fans here and there does not deviate enough for each game to feel separate, ingenious enough to serve as its own game, but rather they serve as "extensions" to Ocarina of Time. In a way, the series can already be seen as 'monotonous', if you're one of the few that subscribe to the notion that the series since TWW is "CC OoT". Changes here and there, if minor, wouldn't affect the point of view.

For the series to not be monotonous, changes would have to be MAJOR, and abundant at that. They would have to sprawl over many games, constantly and consistently, rather than make their appearance in one game then completely drop (for example, the deep surrealism that was featured in Majora's Mask, a game which was viewed as an entirely different inception completely and utterly separate from Ocarina of Time, was used then but hasn't been seen since; this was twelve years ago).

If you don't agree, then why would change seem/be bad to you?

Change isn't inherently bad to me, as I said earlier. Rather, it is the direction that some changes make, and the removal/addition of feelings in any particular Zelda title that make the change seem bad to me. For example, if you were consistently feeling happy about a carrot cake without nuts, then the next carrot cake you get HAS nuts and you don't feel happy, you'll view that change -- the nuts -- as bad. Same concept can be used on Zelda. I couldn't properly tell you what I feel with Zelda, or what I do not WANT to feel with Zelda, but some games (Skyward Sword, obviously) evoke certain emotions that previously were foreign to me. If I do not like the direction the change is going, if the change is evoking new emotions or removing emotions I felt with previous works, the change will not be a thing pleasing to mine eye.

That's about all I can say on the subject.

 

[JuicieJ]

Its when core ideas are changed, like in SS, that my teeth start grinding.

The only core idea that was changed in Skyward Sword was the control scheme. All other things were add-ons to improve the formula. Even the overworld wasn't changed entirely. We'd seen puzzle-like overworlds in Zelda before. It was just more than the ones in the past. Everything else stayed the same at its core. I don't see why you would think otherwise.

 

[Spirit]

Change isn't the problem its the fanbase. Fanfiction society and fandom is at an all time high and developers like Nintendo who care aboutt heir fanbase know that their fans are very attached to what they know, Zelda fans (the hardcore ones) don't seem to be fickle either, they seem to be quite loyal but again, they're loyal to what they know, if Zelda were to change too drastically then they have the ability to throw it to the side because 'it isn't Zelda' and effectively boycott it, hurting sales and the franchise overall.

the worst thing about it is that Zelda does change with every installment but not enough. Zelda needs a dramatic change because its current 'change a little each time tactic' makes it look as if nintendo are trying to cling to soemthing they dont want to break but it looks tot he casual majority that they aren't trying hard enough. Especially now with Nintendo focusing on HOW the game is played rather than WHAT you are playing, much less attention has been given to the content of the game overall (SS is a good example of this with its level design and clumsy plot padding). Really, after 25 years we should not be excited about a dash command...

Personally i'd love Nintendo to throw the entire zelda engine out and start over, make it play something like Devil May Cry 3 or Bayonetta, I'd like to see that but the change, oh the change, my poor heart... and the fandom headache... my god!

 

[JuicieJ]

Especially now with Nintendo focusing on HOW the game is played rather than WHAT you are playing, much less attention has been given to the content of the game overall (SS is a good example of this with its level design and clumsy plot padding).

How did SS, let alone any other recent Zelda title, focus more on how we are playing rather than what we are? ST and SS have some of the best and most thought-provoking level design in the franchise. These two games brought in more of the how we play the game factor for sure, but they didn't diminish the factor of what we were playing at all.

 

[HyruleHistory10]

personally i think that change is a good thing but i am just worried that if they do make zelda a DMC or god of war type game we will lose out on the overworld and exploration. but that is just me and i love all zelda games because each one to me (though some parts seem rehashed) feels like a brother or sister (for lack of a better phrase) to the other zelda games versus an aunt once removed on your cousins side etc. if you catch my drift. plus in SS if we would have had large group fights of enemies throughout the game like DMC or god of war i think that the ending with Ghirahim summoning the horde would have felt more like pah that is it...easy versus wow that looks tough

i do think that gamers are scared of the change but something has to give or zelda will just be another castlevania (yawn....)

this is why i love the zelda fanbase lol we are all so different.

 

[tysonrss]

They complain when it changes and complain when it doesn't.

So actually, I don't think it really matters.

 

[A Link In Time]

The problem lies in altering the formula too much thus transforming Zelda into a completely different franchise. That said, Skyward Sword presented a very balanced approach which I'd like to see in the future. The game featured the dungeons and overworld we've come to expect but also added a stamina gauge, shield meter, adventure pouch, upgrade system, and more. It remained familiar while treading the most ground in terms of gameplay and design since Ocarina of Time.

An artificial roadblock is created by the Zelda fanbase itself. It's easily one of the most bipolar in the entire gaming industry. It's understandable Nintendo is unsure which route to take because no matter what course is pursued, a bevy of complainers will follow. Majora's Mask was lampooned for its intricate save system; The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess were bashed for their "un Zelda" like graphics; Skyward Sword created a rift within the community over whether or not motion control was the way to go in terms of control.

I have confidence that no matter what approach Nintendo takes in the future, the series will remain fresh while simultaneously ingrained in various traditions. It's successfully done so for 25 years while never significantly dipping in quality and this precedent can be maintained for a lot longer to come.