• 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.

Is Zelda Falling Behind?

Majora's Cat

How about that
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
NJ
The Situation

No developer makes video games like Nintendo does. No single developer has as many stellar, industry-changing and inspiring games in their repertoire as Nintendo. But as technology advances and Sony and Microsoft continue to feed hardcore gamers with realistic visuals and ultra-violent video games, one can only think that other than Zelda, Mario, Metroid and some other major cash cow franchises, Nintendo’s only trick is creating gimmicky, crappy Wii games that appeal to children with no appetite for “real” games.

With the releases of the Xbox 720 and the PS4 on the horizon, things are looking grim for all Nintendo-developed games to come. The Wii U looks promising, but its graphical technology is only on par with the Xbox 360 and PS3 - two consoles soon to be outdated. While Nintendo Wii games still dominate the market due to the wide appeal and popularity of titles like “Mario Party” and “Wii Play”, third party developers that focus their attention on Sony and Microsoft’s consoles are raking in the cash of the core gaming community.

What About Zelda?

Some critics that are fond of Xbox and PS games have voiced their complaints for Skyward Sword. Zelda, Mario and Metroid games are becoming a completely different section of the gaming industry; some of the few gems in a pile of crap that consists of Wii titles. Games with high production values, inspiring gameplay, FPS action, extreme violence and gore are taking over the industry, and old favorites like Zelda are becoming more obsure.

Although Zelda remain as (arguably) one of the greatest franchises or the greatest franchise of all time, most of the series’ fame is due to older installments. Its earlier greatness is what keeps the series riding sky high, while newer titles are met with a barrage of criticism because of the high technical standards critics have come to develop in the last few years. Zelda is just as magical as it was twenty years ago, but times have changed since then. Nintendo is choking on Microsoft and Sony’s dust in terms of technical prowess. The GameCube may be the last console that was most almost evenly matched with other manufactured consoles in terms of output, making it so that newer Zelda games must stand their ground on the gameplay alone.

Although the Wii U has displayed amazing capabilities, the impending release of its competitor’s new consoles can only mean one thing: an updated graphics engine that will surely set Nintendo back to its previous stance in the visual war. And the upcoming Zelda title for the Wii U will likely be quite the spectacle, but I can’t help but feel that it will still look outdated when compared to other games of its generation. Gamers like to say that graphics don’t matter in Zelda, and I would like to think that too. But when the divide between Zelda games and more impressive looking adventure and RPG games is mostly created by the games’ visuals, you know that Zelda has some catching up to do.

The Question

Do you think that Zelda games are below par technically? Are the gameplay and classic charm all that keeps the franchise from losing its luster?
 

Zeldawolfsheik

Chief of Shiekah Tribe
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Location
Koholint Island
I think Zelda is my favorite series because of its art styles and its one of a kind gameplay. I do think that hardware and graphics (HD) as well as voice acting make a big difference. Sometimes, cutesy doesnt cut it and realistic graphics are the way to go. I think yes it is falling behind in some ways (HD, Voice acting etc.) but with other things, it is by far ahead like 1to1 swird ola. do we all share my opinion?
 

Libk

Spaceballs: The Mafia Player
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Location
Spaceball 1
OK, so you're saying,basically, that Zelda may be falling behind because it is not a hardcore, FPS, or ultra-violent game, yes?

Well, here's how I see it. Zelda is not falling behind. People are not realizing what a good game is. Graphics are nice, but if it doesn't have good story or gameplay, it's not great. That's not how most people see it sadly, but no, Zelda is not falling behind.

Here's what would make zelda fall behind. If they Added anything more modern then a cannon or train. The day you start walking around new hyrule city, bustin' caps at people who won't give you a sidequest, is the day Zelda actually falls behind. What some people are blinded by on other systems, is completely different then zelda. Zelda is exactly where it is supposed to be. You also have to remember video games have fads too. FPS will get boring eventually, and Zelda may rise back to the top again. It's still up there in ratings and awards, even if it doesn't get as much hype as other titles. There is nothing wrong with Zelda, but something wrong with a lot of gamers and how they view what a "good game" is.
 

Majora's Cat

How about that
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
NJ
I think Zelda is my favorite series because of its art styles and its one of a kind gameplay. I do think that hardware and graphics (HD) as well as voice acting make a big difference. Sometimes, cutesy doesnt cut it and realistic graphics are the way to go. I think yes it is falling behind in some ways (HD, Voice acting etc.) but with other things, it is by far ahead like 1to1 swird ola. do we all share my opinion?

My thoughts exactly. Like most video games, Zelda excels in some areas and doesn't shine as brightly in others. This is why reviewers tend to pick on the visuals less, instead sympathizing with the low visual power of the Wii console and focusing more on what Nintendo was able to do with the limitations. It's a bit pitiable, as critics actually need to look down on Zelda games a bit to appreciate their beauty.

OK, so you're saying,basically, that Zelda may be falling behind because it is not a hardcore, FPS, or ultra-violent game, yes?

You clearly did not read the post. FPS and violent video games receive the most publicity and are therefore standards in the industry. However, I was more referring to the visuals in Zelda. They may feel outdated at times, and that's due to a lack of a graphical power in Nintendo's recent home consoles.

Well, here's how I see it. Zelda is not falling behind. People are not realizing what a good game is. Graphics are nice, but if it doesn't have good story or gameplay, it's not great. That's not how most people see it sadly, but no, Zelda is not falling behind.

Here's what would make zelda fall behind. If they Added anything more modern then a cannon or train. The day you start walking around new hyrule city, bustin' caps at people who won't give you a sidequest, is the day Zelda actually falls behind. What some people are blinded by on other systems, is completely different then zelda. Zelda is exactly where it is supposed to be. You also have to remember video games have fads too. FPS will get boring eventually, and Zelda may rise back to the top again. It's still up there in ratings and awards, even if it doesn't get as much hype as other titles. There is nothing wrong with Zelda, but something wrong with a lot of gamers and how they view what a "good game" is.

Remember that Zelda games have very sloppy stories, with Skyward Sword being the exception. Most gamers fall in love with Zelda because of the gameplay, and as I mentioned in my first post, that is what keeps the franchise up there with the highest competition. I realize that the FPS genre is extremely popular at the moment. I never said that Zelda has to "jump on the bandwagon" to appeal to the general public. The franchise has a very large and supportive fanbase.

I also never said that Zelda isn't "good". The Legend of Zelda is arguably as good as it gets, and I also do not believe that today's gamers have turned a cold shoulder to the franchise. Impressive sales throughout the years prove that Zelda games can be just as popular as other games in the modern day, and that the general public still loves the series. After all, even though Call of Duty has an enormous fanbase, almost as many gamers despise the series. Aside from a few critics and spiteful gamers, Zelda remains dear in everyone's heart and is commonly viewed as the greatest video game series of all time by critics and gamers alike.
 
In some respects, yes. Take Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Nintendo already successfully incorporated voice acting into one of its greatest franchises. But for Zelda, not yet. Mario continues to innovate playing with gravity, stereoscopic 3D, and motion control. Graphics in Zelda are sub par. Skyward Sword painfully highlighted this. While Zelda may no longer be a technically advanced franchise but it sure does have a fantastic artistic vision. The beautiful impressionist graphics fit Skyward Sword perfectly. Earlier The Wind Waker captivated audiences with its clear juxtaposition of a moving story and cell-shaded graphics and the dreadful tone of Majora's Mask made players care for supporting characters. That being said, critics often overlook the creative side of games and if Zelda Wii U is to impress critics, it needs to pack a technical punch. Voice acting, more risk taking in development, spectacular graphics, and new control outputs are the way of the future for the Zelda series.
 

Ronin

There you are! You monsters!
Forum Volunteer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Location
Alrest
For me, graphics don't make a game great. They establish the world that the game is stationed in, yes, but do not decide its grandness in any form otherwise. I love Zelda for its gameplay, and any other series for that very same matter. Gameplay takes on more of an essential role in terms of immersing the player into the game to start out with. Looking at a game like Yoshi's Story, the settings didn't look all that extraordinary (it was heavily criticized for looking only satisfying to children), but its gameplay was amazing for me. That comes to the forefront of my mind as the prime example that I could voice in no better way. Really, I'd rather have a game with crappy graphics and superb gameplay than one with remarkable visuals and horrendous controls.

Bearing that in mind, I'll say it depends on how you view Zelda's demanding attention. Of course most people would probably find appeal in games graphically, but I shake my head at that. There are so many more elements which a stupendous title consists of in lieu to--aside from graphics--violence, profanity, and suggestive themes. These are character development, an engaging/credible storyline, immersive gameplay, music (also a great contributor to an atmosphere), and dialogue. Zelda contains all these aspects within each new adventure, whereas other games such as Call of Duty are not advancing forward, but outsell a resplendent title like SkywardSword?

The Wii U will help give an upper hand in this "console war" (ridiculous that it's necessary originally), yet it should not be won on graphics. Nintendo must keep releasing games that will appeal to current fans but at the same time reach out to the appeal of others.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
For the most part, Zelda has been below par technically because it doesn't have the best graphics capable at the time. Yes, I do believe that the gameplay and classic charm are all that keep the series alive to this day; otherwise the playerbase is a bunch of people who believe that because "The Legend of Zelda" is in the title that it MUST BE GOOD.

However, despite the series' lack of graphical power and realism, it still stands as one of the most innovative. As we all know, it's basically the precursor to most modern day FPS games, along with several other classics. Innovative doesn't mean jack though, if the game doesn't have HD graphics in 2011 (or 2012). We'll have to wait for Zelda Wii U and Zelda 3DS to really say if the series is falling behind – those systems are actually prepared for the graphical onslaught.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Who seriously wants realism in a video game? Yeah, Final Fantasy always uses top-notch graphics for a more realistic look, but looks aren't everything. In reality, would you walk up to someone, punch them in the face, then wait for them to hit you back? To which you retaliate by throwing fire at them with your bare hand? I play "real life" when I'm not playing video games. Another example would be Mega Man. Went back to 8(ish)-bit, and still sells like crazy, because it's still awesome. Just like Zelda. Nothing wrong with it the way it is, I say.
 

misskitten

Hello Sweetie!
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Location
Norway
I have two main favorite gaming series to play; Zelda and Fable. Zelda has been a favorite since I was merely 14 and played OoT for the first time and while for nostalgic reasons OoT remains my favorite I really do love the newer titles I've come to play over the years.

Now, with Fable which I started playing some years back I absolutely loved the first game. I loved it so much that when it came down to choosing which console to get first out of the X-box 360 and the Wii, I actually opted for the X-box because of the impending release of Fable II. Now, like I said I completely loved the first game, the gameplay, the story, the exploration, the many sidequests - the same reasons I love Zelda and I do feel the games have at least some similarities.

Both games are exploration games, both game series mainly keeps to one and the same land at various points of history (Hyrule and Albion), both game series focuses on an un-named character who leads a seemingly normal life until destiny finds them (Link and the Hero) and like all the Links in Zelda are connected through reincarnation - all the Heroes in Fable are connected through family ties, both games feature a long line of quests/tasks - some tied together to form the main story - the rest made optional but thoroughly enhances gameplay and helps equip you to manage the main quests better.

Now, they are far from the same - Zelda is a very puzzle-oriented game series, Fable is more straightforward and the storyline guides you from location to location and beating the game is more about facing and conquering opponents than finding answers to puzzles (though the Demon doors tend to speak in riddles), Zelda has a series of items you use to get through the game, while Fable focuses more on developing your character's skillset. Zelda's world is very unique and many of its creatures have no basis in real life or mythological creatures - Fable mainly ops for mythology in its creatures and the world emulates various time periods from our own world (from medieval days to the industrial revolution). And there's many other things I could mention as well both in terms of similarities and differences, but my point is that gamers who are attracted to one series could easily be attracted to the other for a lot of reasons.

Now here's where Nintendo and Microsoft/Lionhead differs in terms of developing their game series (other than Zelda having a 25 year history and a myriad of games and Fable being a more recent gaming series with only a couple of titles that is). Zelda shakes things up, no title are the same - they may be connected in some way, take up the story where another left, explain events that take place in other titles - they are tied together without rehashing the same thing over and over again (I know some would disagree and point to the formula of x dungeons, plot twist, y dungeons, final boss - but in my honest opinion that statement would be pretty much the same as me claiming that Zelda and Fable are interchangable as games due to their many similarities - and anyone who's played both can testify to the many ways they are nothing alike), Nintendo takes chances with every new Zelda, not just automatically catering to the same crowd, but rather taking the gamble that critical fans will look past their personal perceived irks with the game (like WW looking too childish, TP looking too realistic, not liking motion controls or the stylus, too different from previous Zelda titles, not different enough from previous Zelda titles, etc) and give it a real try, possibly learning to love something new in the process.

Microsoft/Lionhead seems to do the exact opposite with Fable. As much as I love all three titles released so far, I do feel their priorities are off. There are certain improvements in the games, like graphics looking better for each game, new games offering options that weren't in the original, like from Fable II and onwards you had the option of playing a female hero, you could pick and choose houses to buy (while in game one the only way of owning anything besides the designated maritual home in each town was to kill the owner of the house) and you could have a family, from Fable III you could own businesses, you could adopt thereby giving you the chance to have a family without having to resort to marrying someone of the opposite sex and you could dye your hair and clothes in any color you wanted, giving you more creative control on how your character looks. Gimmicks mainly.

Now, I'm not saying gimmicks can't be fun in games, but the sad part is that a lot of other important things in the games suffered for it. The story for Fable II was poor and while Fable III featured a better story it came nowhere close to the one in the original game. The difficulty lessened with each game. In the first game which spell you cast mattered, you had a mana bar and a health bar that you needed to keep watch of to make sure you could keep using magic and stay alive, you could die, upon which you had to restart your current quest from the start - by the of the third game the mana bar and health bare were both gone, you could cast as many spells as you'd like without there being any problems and you no longer died - merely fainted and the only thing you lost was the progress you had to gaining a new guild seal (kind of a point system allowing you to earn new abilities) - which made the game riddiculously easy. Now they are developing their fourth game, which will be a kinnect game and from the look of it it will even be made in first person. It seems to me they are more conserned with pleasing mainstream gaming (like the FPS crowd) than producing quality games, which is sad because the original game had so much going for it...

So do I think Zelda is falling behind? Not really. There's so much more to a game than visuals. Like I stated above, newer Fable titles looks visually stunning and the world is bigger and more detailed - however not enough thought was put into story, gameplay and a lot of other things that really matters in a game. With Zelda we can see that there is thought put into every aspect, even if we sometimes disagree on certain creative choices, like for instance graphics style (WW vs TP) controller types (motion controls vs buttons vs stylus).

I think Zelda draws in more new fans with every new title and once you're drawn in as a fan you tend to stick around - you tend to want to try other existing titles and you tend to look forward to whatever title is coming next. I may nostalgically favor OoT with it being the first Zelda game I ever played, but I think both TP and SS are great games (WW probably is too, I just haven't really played it yet) - bringing new things to Zelda without living off the charm of the classic games - I wholeheartedly believe I would enjoy them even if I had never tried OoT - all OoT did in terms of those games was introduce me to Zelda, making me interested in trying other Zelda titles.
 

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Ohio
I think that Zelda can be perceived as falling behind right now in that it doesn't have the best graphics. Other than that Zelda is still on a level playing ground with pretty much any other game. Nintendo has always emphasized gameplay over graphics, and right now graphics are much more emphasized by the video game media. Really Zelda is falling behind only from a certain perspective, but in other ways it is just as relevant and innovative as ever.

Plus the whole "falling behind in the graphics race" thing can be completely undone with a single release. I'd bet Nintendo is going to go with realistic HD Zelda for Wii U because that's what is demanded more than anything (although Nintendo has an attitude about gamers not knowing what they really want so I could easily be dead wrong). Wii U will be released before the other next gen consoles, and if Wii U Zelda can be released quickly, then suddenly Zelda could be ahead of the curve in terms of graphics.

Gameplay and classic charm go a long way in the video game industry. New Super Mario Brothers Wii was a 2d sidescroller and it sold about 22 million copies by last April. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 was released the same month and just passed the 22 million last August. Considering that Modern Warfare 2 was sold across 3 platforms (including PC), this shows that a game with almost no emphasis on graphics can still hold its own against games that are the technologically advanced and immensely popular.

Zelda has always been second fiddle to Mario in terms of sales, but critically Zelda is Nintendo's ace in the hole. This remains to be true as Skyward Sword received numerous perfect reviews. It's true that there are more less than perfect reviews than when OOT was released. Part of the reason for this almost has to be because of the graphics, but gameplay and controls were criticized by some reviewers as well.
 

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
Do you think that Zelda games are below par technically? Are the gameplay and classic charm all that keeps the franchise from losing its luster?

I hate to admit it, but I think the answer to your question is yes. I really think Nintendo should have focussed on technical superiority earlier on. The wii should have had HD capabilities when it was released. The only reason for this
'But as technology advances and Sony and Microsoft continue to feed hardcore gamers with realistic visuals and ultra-violent video games, one can only think that other than Zelda, Mario, Metroid and some other major cash cow franchises, Nintendo’s only trick is creating gimmicky, crappy Wii games that appeal to children with no appetite for “real” games. '
is because Nintendo failed to bring out a console as powerful as Microsoft and Sony. If they had, then we would have got all your Call of Duty, soul Calibur, Batman and assassins creed games on the Wii. Microsoft and Sony would be nowhere near as big as they are now because people would be able to have got those experiences on a Nintendo console. I may not have even purchased a 360 if it were not for the fact that there was all those experiences I was missing out on. Nintendo has Mario and Zelda fans, and then it has softcore mom and kiddie gamers which are now making it the most money. This should never have happened. I am saddened by the massive load of crap that comes out for the Wii and then when a true masterpiece comes out, it is partly ruined by the SD console and technical inferiority to Microsoft.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
No. Zelda is currently gaining more and more fans. Unlike AC and Skyrim, Zelda takes more risks and succeeds at it. the third party rather improves it a little and gives you something like the first one you play, they use some of the same things from earlier games they make. Of course Nintendo starts from scratch with most of the games. Zelda has towered in some of the last few days and will have love when new fans play Zelda Wii U because of how criticizing they are. We will have the more and more fans as years go by, Zelda Wii U might not be as good because of the risks it is taking, but if it succeeds with the risks it will probably become many fans new favorite of the series. I hope they improve Zelda with the age of motion controls. The thing that keeps Zelda up is storyline and gameplay, it helps sales by catching ones eye from the start, but also helps more by introducing others with fans and spreading Zelda across the world. :)
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Location
Ohio
Yes they are fallen behind imo for the following reasons- Graphics don't make a game but they help sales of games because of visual appeal(I don't care about graphics but many do)
- Motion controls are gimicky imo and in many others. I hate motion controls in games. If Zelda continues to ditch button controls
i will never play zelda again and make Elder Scrolls my new favorite series.
- The casual gamer won't be attracted to anything but shooters and level up rpg's skyrim because they are easier get good at.
( Zelda needs new fans to keep Nintendo from losing money anymore)
My only problem with the series is the motion controls but these are problems that new players have when trying to get into the series
 
Last edited:

LinkPTY

Skyward Wiimote
Joined
Nov 21, 2011
Location
Panama
In past generations people didn't care about graphics and kids (including myself) had the most fun playing Mario Kart 64, Super Smash Bros. and all those awesome games. Now with the current generation, everyone cares about graphics the most. You can have the most amazing gameplay with regular graphics and people are gonna bash it because of that. Take Call of Duty for example (I love it, by the way, not hating it in any way), for the past 4 years it's been the same thing with different graphics and slightly different gameplay, but it will never be as epic and deep as Zelda is.

Another thing that doesn't help the Wii are all these crappy, casual games that are released on it.

I hope the Wii U goes back to core gamers, but my hopes aren't to high on that.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
Zelda was (barely) starting to head down that path upon Twilight Princess's release. Everything it was doing was pretty much exactly the same with a few minor add-on's here and there. Then Skyward Sword came along. Skyward Sword introduced God knows how many new aspects into the series that completely revitalized Zelda like Link drinking a Heart Potion+. Its motion controls combined with all the JRPG elements that accent all of the series's signature aspects have re-assured the gaming community that Zelda is nowhere near the path of death. Instead, it's reminded us all that Zelda is going nowhere but up, higher than any Loftwing could fly. The mainstream gaming community may say the total opposite, but that's only because they think all games must have realistic graphics to be good. Thankfully, the Wii U will introduce HD to the Zelda series, so, even if the graphical style isn't gritty (which it most likely won't be), people won't be able to complain about it not being crystal clear and "inferior". It's sad that it's going to take that to finally get those people's attention, but at least Zelda will be more appreciated (and Nintendo as a whole).

All that said, Zelda is nowhere falling behind. It's still the most critically acclaimed series in gaming history, and that isn't going to change any time soon. There's a reason Zelda was the first series to be inducted into the Video Game Hall of Fame. All in all, it's still ahead of all other game franchises bar none. Long may that continue.


On a side-note, I am actually quite happy that Zelda will now be in HD. HD graphics pwn no matter what the art style. Graphics don't make or break a game, but they sure as hell don't hurt.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom