General Zelda Video Game Darwinism

[ihateghirahim]

The Legend of Zelda is one of the (best in my book) game series ever. It has had any innovations since it first debuted on the Famicom in 1986. It has had many innovations: Many ups like OoT. Many downs like Wand of Gamelon and WW (No comments, it's not the point). Within its innovation, it has retained many similar attributes. You can tell a Zelda game when you see one. Sales have been strong, but Zelda has been surpassed in sales by other game types. Are we failing to adapt with technology? Have we failed to evolve enough? Have we succeeded, but simply been ignored by gamers? Do we need to evolve?

 

[DekuPrincess]

I had to vote unsure on this one for a few reasons. While I do think it is important for some progression to take place simply to ensure that the game keeps pace with developments in technology (as much as we love OoT, but if that was being released now people would laugh at it). However, I do not think that evolution for the sake of evolution is warranted or desirable. I think this trend is actually what has caused some problems in recent games--the focus on attempting to evolve gameplay and controls has clearly detracted from a focus on creating a truly great video game and resulted in gimmicky mechanisms and simpler, more straight forward games. Evolution cannot be avoided entirely, imo, because the industry and contemporary games will continue to evolve, and if the Zelda franchise doesn't keep pace it will fail eventually. The problem is how to implement new developments and utilize new technology without turning it into the focus of the game.

 

[Random Person]

I'm actually pretty unsure. When I think " Modern Zelda" SS seems to pop in my head and rightfully so considering it is the latest addition to the series. Because of that, I start condemning the entire series because of this one game. My non Zelda fan friends have even caught me saying "this game has better exploration than Zelda games" and they'll correct me by saying "you mean Skyward Sword right?" What I'm having a hard time remembering is that every other (canon) game in the series that I've played, I loved and felt were great additions to the series (with other comments about AoL).

So when I look at Skyward Sword which is rightfully the modern day Zelda, I say yes the Zelda series has failed at evolving. But when I cross that out and just look at the other games, I can see that while it's not perfect, it's certainly a rupee series and for the most part has evolved in the correct fashion. So I don't know whether to look at SS and say "No, we did it wrong because this is where we wound up" or say "This was a mistake, but we're still on the right track."

 

[Satsy]

Evolve how? You ask about whether it should evolve with technology, but considering the last 3 handheld titles and the last 3 console titles, it has grown with them. The technology is gimmicky, and this causes missteps, yes, but that's not all the fault of the games. Many titles desperately tried to pile in as many features as the hardware offered since the DS launched.

And the growth of story and characters has evolved immensely since even LA, where characters where given, well, character!

So what evolution are you after here?

 

[ihateghirahim]

Anything really. I might focus on the technological aspect. Then there's the similarities in gameplay throughout the series. I've had my doubt about how Nintendo has handled story and character development. Really you should examine any and all aspect of the series.

 

[DarkestLink]

Technology means nothing. And there's two types of evolution. There's new and there's better. Zelda has a bad habit of generally focusing on "new" only a few games like OoT, TP, and (to an extent) ST, focused on "better". We need more of this and less of innovation for the sake of itself.

 

[ihateghirahim]

Darkestlink, can you elaborate?

 

[DarkestLink]

Darkestlink, can you elaborate?

It's simple. New is new and not better. Finding something new is easy...I mean there are over 1000 titles on the Wii that are new to me and nothing like Zelda. However I do not want "new". I want better. For example, Wind Waker had sailing and Twilight Princess has horse combat.

Wind Waker took OoT's travel, tossed it to the side, and did something completely new. You get mixed views on this. The majority didn't like sailing, but some did, regardless it's mixed.

Twilight Princess took OoT's travel and improved it. You'll still get mixed reception, but I've yet to hear anybody play with TP's horseback and say "I preferred OoT's horseback riding".

In short, I view innovation as a gamble. You might like it....you might not. But improvement is almost a guaranteed better experience.

 

[Musicfan]

Improvements are innovations. A rolling stone gathers no moss. If you let a series stagnate though it will become stale

 

[DekuPrincess]

In short, I view innovation as a gamble. You might like it....you might not. But improvement is almost a guaranteed better experience.

I agree that it's a gamble, but I don't think you can say that improvement will be a guaranteed better experience. OoT was full of innovation and is still regarded as one of the best--if not the best--video games of all time, and certainly one of the best--if not the best--Zelda games so far. There were many new things in that game that people still point to as great innovations in gaming and in the Zelda series, like the targeting system. Additionally, the introduction of Epona created something new that has come to represent an iconic recurring element in the games for many fans, despite only appearing in three titles to date.

I don't think the problem is innovation. Sometimes it will absolutely fall flat, but other times it will succeed. The problem is when the focus is on innovation or advancement to the detriment of quality.

 

[Justac00lguy]

Hmmm I think the word evolve is pretty strong, I think I prefer nthe term innovation as a game evolving isn't always guaranteed.

If we look at the series, it spans over 26 years and 16 main games, it is one of the longest most notable/consistent series in gaming. However if we look at the games individually, i only see 4 or so games that have truly advanced the series or in a sense evolved. A Link to the Past took the original 2D formula and in my opinion nearly perfected it, it was also the first Zelda game to actually have a concrete story. Ocarina of Time of course for many aspects but most notably bringing Zelda into a 3D world. I would say to a certain extent Wind Waker as well, it showed us a completely new graphical nstyle as well as facial expressions. However WW was most notable for its differentiation in terms of overworld and exploration. The last game I would say it Twilight Princess, I may be biased here but let me explain. Don't get me wrong TP had many flaws but I thinknit is the perfect base for what could be nthe future of the series. The graphics in my opinion were as realistic as a Zelda game should get and with the dark themes it showcased in the story made the events seem realistic. I also thought that TP is the perfect example of how narrative and character development could work, what with its great characters like Midna and how effective the cut scenes were.

Ahh, went a bit off topic there but what I am essentially saying is that the Zelda series spans 25 years and 16 games yet there are only 3-4 games that I think have actually successfully advanced the series. Innovation in games is vital for the success in the long and I think Nintendo does see this, I mean each Zelda game most of the time is its own story, has its own graphical style and sometimes even controls. However this isn't always sussesssful, I mean take Skyward Sword, this is a game that changed the control scheme and graphical style. However do I think this is successful innovation to evolve the series? No, I doubt Motion+ controls will return in the future and neither do I think the impressionist art style will return.

This is the problem with the franchise, it is still trying to rethink the series. Zelda has the same formula of course but I think in order to evolve, instead of experimenting they need to in fact build up off the original formula. I think TP is the perfect base to work off, it is no where near perfect but essentially that games formula could turn out to be something special. Of course trying to improve the base formula isn't the sole way to evolve the franchise, innovations here and there may work and as well implementing features that are considered foreign to the series such as RPG elements.

Sales figures may not be the perfect figure to go off, comparing a series like Zelda to one like Cod simply won't work. Cod will always outsell Zelda in this situation (implying that the trend continues). Zelda should evolve, definitely however its the way it goes about it which is Key.

 

[Random Person]

Technology means nothing. And there's two types of evolution. There's new and there's better. Zelda has a bad habit of generally focusing on "new" only a few games like OoT, TP, and (to an extent) ST, focused on "better". We need more of this and less of innovation for the sake of itself.

I can agree to this to some extent.

 

[DarkestLink]

I agree that it's a gamble, but I don't think you can say that improvement will be a guaranteed better experience. OoT was full of innovation and is still regarded as one of the best--if not the best--video games of all time, and certainly one of the best--if not the best--Zelda games so far. There were many new things in that game that people still point to as great innovations in gaming and in the Zelda series, like the targeting system. Additionally, the introduction of Epona created something new that has come to represent an iconic recurring element in the games for many fans, despite only appearing in three titles to date.

I don't think the problem is innovation. Sometimes it will absolutely fall flat, but other times it will succeed. The problem is when the focus is on innovation or advancement to the detriment of quality.

I won't deny that OoT did bring a few new things to the table--all Zeldas have, even TP and ST--but in the end, for the most part, OoT was just aLttP in 3D.

 

[Ventus]

I won't deny that OoT did bring a few new things to the table--all Zeldas have, even TP and ST--but in the end, for the most part, OoT was just aLttP in 3D.

Story structure and dungeon layout, yes. However, Ocarina of Time - a 3D Zelda - was very new simply by being there. It wasn't familiar to most players. It was like exploring an uncharted piece of territory: it might be connected to places you've seen before, but it's still alien at first glance.

Going along with that, I'd have to say that evolving the series is necessary, but evolution only succeeds when you're stronger than the competition. Stronger than the competition, in this sense, really relates to having the right themes that resonate with customers. Nintendo doesn't know what customers really want, so we can't say that the Zelda series is inherently weak when sales rely on the end user's desires which are pretty abstract.

Zelda games are very solid games whether I may like them or not. They're all built well to some degree. The dearth in sales may be allocated to the fact that people just don't care for fantasy games like it anymore.

 

[Castle]

I think the Zelda series needs to take great strides in order to catch up and get itself on par with every other modern franchise video game title.

But I don't want Zelda to turn into something it's not. Although it doesn't exactly resemble itself now, and yet it still doesn't manage to compare well against modern video game titles.

The Zelda series used to be ahead of the curve ... now it looks antiquated.