Is Eiji Aonuma Running Zelda into the Ground?

[athenian200]

I've noticed that Zelda used to be a lot better than it is right now.

Looking back, I noticed that a slow decline, almost imperceptible at first, started once Aonuma become the Director on Zelda games.

I'm beginning to think that Aonuma is running Zelda into the ground, and that's why it seems to be running out of good ideas, and why any new ideas introduced seem to be make things worse and throw off the balance.

Also, it seems like something perceptible is missing from the games that Takashi Tezuka didn't have a hand in.

Does anyone else think this might be the case?

 

[Valexi]

Well, for the sake of argument and to make things more clear; Which games do you consider to be in the "better" category, and which games do you group in with the "slow decline" category?
Sure, OoT and MM set a very high standard that's very difficult to reach, but I don't consider the games to be going downhill exactly.
After all, Wind Waker was under Aonuma, if I'm not mistaken, and it turned out amazing!
But overall, I think it comes down to a matter of preference. The series has had many different directions in terms of ideas and art style, of which a lot of people have different views on. Some people like the Toon Link series for being different and unique with good humor, some people hate it because they think it's childish. Some people loved the grimdark Twilight Princess, some people hated it for being generic.
Personally, I don't really see much decline; As I said before, OoT and MM did set the standard, but if you keep comparing everything to that (and mix in the nostalgia factor) then you're going to be disappointed.
However, the new games bring new things to the table and deserve their own spot in the sunshine, and I've quite enjoyed most of the games under Aonuma, with a few nitpicks here and there.
So, I guess to sum things up, my answer to the question is...Not really, but everything is different strokes with different folks.

 

[Pirgah]

Wasn't Majoras mask done by Aonuma?

 

[athenian200]

Well, for the sake of argument and to make things more clear; Which games do you consider to be in the "better" category, and which games do you group in with the "slow decline" category?

"Not quite there": LoZ, AoL
Better: ALttP, LADX, OoT, MM, OoX, WW, MC
Decline: TP, PH, ST

I know Aonuma technically took over before the last four of those games, but it seems like when he finally started making serious changes to the style of the games, they started getting worse and worse, more like arcade games where you have to consider everything at once or something. All the games he's directed have either been on the decline, or have just been recreations of the existing formula with very few twists (which were probably what I liked).

I think that what happened was that Miyamoto gave Aonuma increasing amounts of freedom, and as he did... the games got worse after a certain point. The problem is that I don't think Aonuma is making POSITIVE additions to Zelda like Miyamoto could. He's just doing things that go against the spirit when he changes something, yet staying true to it when he doesn't.

 

[StrangeWig]

I think the main problem here is that we're comparing Aonuma's job to that of the greatest mind in videogaming history the world has ever seen, Miyamoto. Guess it must be extremely hard to be able to maintain Miyamoto's level of quality in these games.

I don't think the Zelda franchise is in real decline, I mean, there's only one main game that "is not as good as the other ones" (which is certainly VERY FAR AWAY from average), TP. Well, about PH and ST, I still have to play them, but based on all the others opinions, I guess it did a good job when compared to the older handheld titles.

Plus, SS is coming next year, under Aonuma's direction, and I have the feeling it will be EPIC!

 

[Earthtemple]

I really enjoyed every Zelda game I've played, and I don't notice a decline at all. I think Aonuma is doing a wonderful job. I dont see why people complain about different Zelda games. I mean sure we can all look at Ocarina and say that any company can and will have a hard time ever making a game up to the same standards, but given how hard it is to live up to OoT, I think it's amazing how well WW and TP came out.

 

[Majora16]

No, I don't think the Zelda series is in a steady decline. I think it has had its ups and downs (Like most video game series) and for the most part, it's just as good as it's always been. I think it has a lot to do with preferences as well. Personally, I love TP and TWW and thought they were far better than OoT, ALttP or most of the earlier titles. Most games, musicians, TV shows, and movie trilogies go downhill but I think that the Zelda series is one of the few that has aged well and has had a steady level of quality throughout the series.

However, I do agree that PH and ST aren't on par with the rest of the series. I don't think they're quite as good, but that's probably not Aonuma's fault. I think the DS itself is to blame. The low-res graphics only allowed for a mediocre interpretation of TWW graphics, and the low storage only allowed for a short story, few NPCs, simple temples and below-average music (in PH's case). I think that if those two games had been in the traditional 2D style of Zelda handheld games instead of a half-3D/half-2D, they would have been seen as great installments in the franchise. BUT, by the standards of most DS games, they were extraordinary. Once SS and whatever the next 3DS Zelda are released, I think the series will be back on track.

But again, it all has to do with preferences.

 

[basement24]

I think it's a matter of opinion really, because I loved TP more than OoT (Yeah, I did, and I'm an old-school gamer who's played each titles as it was released at that!). I also enjoyed PH quite a bit, and liked ST even more.

Opinions aside, I don't think it's possible to make this claim. There's many, MANY video game titles out there that barely warrant a sequel. There's many MANY more that get a sequel that's pure drivel compared to the "Game of the Year" levels the first game was. I can't say that it can be said Aonuma or anyone on the Legend of Zelda team is running the series into the ground when the 16th game is being released soon and the pervious ones still sell millions of copies.

The plug's usually pulled on a video game series now after 2 or 3 games. Most developers have one success and then cop out saying it's 1st in a trilogy because they know sales will drop off horribly. Companies who put a lot of their faith in a series that ends up failing due to quality decline go bankrupt these days, very quickly. People are fired for being in charge of failing titles and others mysteriously leave their companies by resigning. So really, if anything I would have to say the people beind the Zelda series should be applauded for keeping a 25 year franchise alive and selling.

I'm not faulting you though, because it truly is a matter of opinion from person to person if they feel the games have declined, but to look at it from an industry standpoint of numbers, it really cannot be said.

 

[Josh]

The second I saw this thread, I first thought of how outrageous of an accusation that could be. I still think it.

This seems like a very biased question, with a very biased answer, all dwindling down once again to a matter of personal opinion. If you're in Group A, and you think every game after OoT sucks, then of course you think the series took a nosedive, and you blame it on the person in charge. If you like all games equally, or liked the past couple of games, then you're quite quaint with what we have.

Now it's obvious that you're in the far reaches of Group A, which explains the entire answer to this thread, as said above. Now, for what I believe, I consider myself Group B. The more and more I play Twilight Princess, especially the most recent time, I start liking it more and more, and want to play it more and more, even right now this thread has got me thinking about playing it. I don't think the series took a nosedive with Twilight Princess, or any game after it, they're all good in their own, equal way.

Eiji has also said on numerous occasions, that his one goal in creating these games is to live up to, and make a game better than Ocarina of Time. He's constantly trying out new ideas, new ways to show up the best game, which I think many fans aren't appreciative of, especially Group A. They like the old formula, the one from Ocarina of Time, and other games around that time. They don't like these new trains or boats, they like what they already have. Aonuma has a huge gap to cross, one filled with old angry fans, ones that don't like change. He'll have a few bumps trying to sort things out, but in the end, I think he'll create the one thing that's he's always been dreaming of, a better game than Ocarina of Time.

 

[Turo602]

Well, for the sake of argument and to make things more clear; Which games do you consider to be in the "better" category, and which games do you group in with the "slow decline" category?
Sure, OoT and MM set a very high standard that's very difficult to reach, but I don't consider the games to be going downhill exactly.
After all, Wind Waker was under Aonuma, if I'm not mistaken, and it turned out amazing!
But overall, I think it comes down to a matter of preference. The series has had many different directions in terms of ideas and art style, of which a lot of people have different views on. Some people like the Toon Link series for being different and unique with good humor, some people hate it because they think it's childish. Some people loved the grimdark Twilight Princess, some people hated it for being generic.
Personally, I don't really see much decline; As I said before, OoT and MM did set the standard, but if you keep comparing everything to that (and mix in the nostalgia factor) then you're going to be disappointed.
However, the new games bring new things to the table and deserve their own spot in the sunshine, and I've quite enjoyed most of the games under Aonuma, with a few nitpicks here and there.
So, I guess to sum things up, my answer to the question is...Not really, but everything is different strokes with different folks.

I agree with this. Ocarina of Time did set the standard and was a masterpiece. It's very hard to top a masterpiece while also trying to be fresh and new. I really enjoyed Wind Waker and Twilight Princess very much and are on my top 3 of Zelda games. I think he's doing a good job so far because both those games didn't suck and where really good despite our little geeky problems with them.

 

[DuckNoises]

Athenian, while I do agree with you on a slow "decline" in quality, I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to Aonuma. It may just be the fact that he and Miyamoto aren't as much a "team" as they used to be, because Miyamoto has been promoted to General Manager of Nintendo (sometime since OoT), which is an extremely tasking job. I wouldn't say that it is Aonuma's fault, it's more of the fact that Miyamoto hasn't been as involved as he used to be. Aonuma is great, but I don't think it will be easy for him to achieve what was achieved when great minds worked closer together. They used to be a team, after all -- and what's left of a team when their leader (of sorts) has gone?

Miyamoto now probably has the single most time-consuming job at Nintendo, and it's a shame that he probably can't take as much time to add his special brand of genius to all of his projects. It would be beyond fantastic to see him take the occasional break from his General Manager responsibilities and to resume being director of Zelda, but he is a very, very busy man.

Again, I see this general "decline" in quality (heck, I even made a graph of how I think it's declining), but I wouldn't attribute it directly to Aonuma. He's great at what he does, and someone has to continue Miyamoto's legacy when Miyamoto himself can't. He's made lots of great games, and I don't think it's necessarily Aonuma's fault.

The only possible fault that I could see in Aonuma is not so much a fault of his own, but more of a comparison to Miyamoto. In my eyes, Miyamoto has largely been an "anti-gimmick" sort of fellow, and I feel that Aonuma is more open to change. This is why a lot of Aonuma's games are much more polarizing, because they seem to take bigger risks with some of the game play. In the hardcore gaming world, too much change is often shunned, which may result in some people's disapproval with some of the games he's made.

To reiterate, I don't think Aonuma's the problem, it's merely that Miyamoto doesn't have quite as much time to put his ideas into the games as he used to. They worked better as a team; Aonuma is one of the star players of that team, but things can't be as great as they used to be when their best player can no longer be there all the time.

Also, if anyone wants to see my graph of my opinions, I can post it.

 

[athenian200]

The second I saw this thread, I first thought of how outrageous of an accusation that could be. I still think it.

Well... I'm sorry, but I do want someone to be held accountable for the fact the past three games weren't that good. I grant, maybe TP wasn't that bad, although I personally thought the story focused too much on Midna, as well as feeling... kind of "hokey." The gameplay was good, honestly, though it felt a little too much like playing Ocarina of Time with enhanced graphics.

This seems like a very biased question, with a very biased answer, all dwindling down once again to a matter of personal opinion. If you're in Group A, and you think every game after OoT sucks, then of course you think the series took a nosedive, and you blame it on the person in charge. If you like all games equally, or liked the past couple of games, then you're quite quaint with what we have.

I never said it was an objective question. That's why I asked whether you thought that he was running it into the ground. I didn't assert that he was. It was just a theory I came up with, because I heard that Miyamoto had handed over more power to him right around the time of TP's release.

Now it's obvious that you're in the far reaches of Group A, which explains the entire answer to this thread, as said above. Now, for what I believe, I consider myself Group B. The more and more I play Twilight Princess, especially the most recent time, I start liking it more and more, and want to play it more and more, even right now this thread has got me thinking about playing it. I don't think the series took a nosedive with Twilight Princess, or any game after it, they're all good in their own, equal way.

Maybe it was a little harsh for me to include TP in that list. It was a pretty good game, I just personally didn't like the storyline and thought it was dull outside of the dungeons. I shouldn't be critiquing a game for the storyline, I know. But I'm pretty sure I have a point about the two most recent games, with those awful central dungeons.

Eiji has also said on numerous occasions, that his one goal in creating these games is to live up to, and make a game better than Ocarina of Time. He's constantly trying out new ideas, new ways to show up the best game, which I think many fans aren't appreciative of, especially Group A. They like the old formula, the one from Ocarina of Time, and other games around that time. They don't like these new trains or boats, they like what they already have. Aonuma has a huge gap to cross, one filled with old angry fans, ones that don't like change. He'll have a few bumps trying to sort things out, but in the end, I think he'll create the one thing that's he's always been dreaming of, a better game than Ocarina of Time.

I think you misunderstand me. I don't want another game exactly like OoT, I want another game of the same caliber as it, WW, or ALttP. In fact, one of my criticisms of TP is that it seems just like OoT with enhanced graphics and an inferior storyline. There are plenty of innovations I would like to see in Zelda, it's just that he seems to be going in a direction I don't like, towards less long-term strategy and more quick tactical decisions. Central dungeons made me feel like I was playing a bad old arcade game. And I've heard rumors that the stamina bar will create the same kind of effect.

It feels like he's weeding out and replacing the RPG elements in Zelda with Arcade elements or something, when those were my favorite elements, and I don't like Arcade elements.

And yes, I admire his passion, but I'm not sure he's capable of delivering on that.

 

[Emma]

I've noticed a decline. But it's not really due to Aonuma specifically. It's Nintendo in general. They're starting to care more about money than about having quality products. Many games have been "dumbed down" to appeal to a larger audience, to get more money. More casual appeal. The Zelda games have been hit hard by this. Games have been getting easier. Yes, Spirit Tracks was harder than Phantom Hourglass for most people, but it still doesn't compare to the older ones. The rest of the stuff has been as good as ever, but the games have been lacking severely in difficulty. I know that so far they've been opposed to it, but they really need to add difficulty settings to the games. Since they love money so much I don't know why they won't. That way their precious casuals will still want to buy and and they still get the hardcore gamers buying from them. More money.

 

[basement24]

I don't think there's an issue of Zelda being the sole game series responsible for "dumbing down" the series either. The entire industry has taken a steep decline from the retro games in terms of difficulty. Developers now spend millions of dollars, tens of millions sometimes, developing a game. It's in their best interest to see that the people playing those games are able to make their way through them for a couple of reasons.

One - They want to ensure people get the whole story. Many games these days are based around story arcs and having seen the entire plot of a previous title. Some end on cliffhangers, others are built as trilogies. If gamers can't see the whole story, they won't have any interest in buying the next new title.

Two - A difficult game makes people frustrated. Frustrated people walk away from games. It used to be that games were very hard and it was rare to hear of anyone beating them amongst circles of friends. Now, developers want to make sure people can't neccessarily breeze through a game, but aren't held up permanently like the 8-bit days. Frustrated people are more likely this day and age to complain on the Internet that a game is impossible. Word spreads, sales go down. I also have a feeling that it has something to do with a more ADD based society. None of my friends or I had any problem going through a game 20 times a week trying to beat a single jump that always killed us. Now, gamers seem to try a couple of times, give up and walk away to slag the game online. It is again in the developer's best interest to make gamers feel that they have accomplished something and weren't driven to anger to do so. They want repeat business.

Look at AoL. It's a hard game, but not nearly impossible by any means. Handle it correctly, and it can be quite easily beaten without strategy guides or FAQs or walkthroughs. Now though, I see new gamers complain their Zelda isn't hard enough. I present them with AoL and they try it for an hour, get frustrated and walk away saying it's too hard. They want to be able to accomplish something and beat the title as quickly as possible so they can get onto the next title.

Back when games rarely got sequels and were level based not story based it really didn't matter. The challenge was the gameplay, not the story. So yes, I would agree that Zelda has got simpler, but it's not solely that series' problem, or a fault of Aonuma or any of the Zelda team. They merely adapted to the changing times and gaming trends. If they didn't, I imagine this forum would have a lot more tumbleweed passing through it, because most members ehre wouldn't have pateince for a series that played out like AoL all the time.

 

[zack125]

In fact, one of my criticisms of TP is that it seems just like OoT with enhanced graphics and an inferior storyline.

I've said this in another topic, but OoT had more things to ALttP than TP did with OoT.