What makes a Zelda game a Zelda game?

[Moblinking5000]

I hear people criticize SS for not being a ''real Zelda game'' due to the fact that it's more linear and focuses more on dungeons and puzzles than other Zelda games, with less of a focus on freeform exploration and towns than previous Zelda games.

On the other hand, people criticize BotW for not being a ''real Zelda game'' due to the fact that it has a focus on freeform exploration and discovery, with dungeon content being mostly split up into bitesized chunks.

Both of these games also focus heavily on combat, but on different aspects.

So...what makes a Zelda game a Zelda game?

The Legend of Zelda is a franchise that has always experimented and tried new things:

The first two games on the NES are different from eachother, with ALttP being different from those games by establishing the so called ''traditional Zelda formula'', LA was the first game released not to take place in Hyrule, OoT brought the series to 3D which changed how the series was played on consoles, MM and its time system shook up the formula, not to mention the larger focus on worldbuilding and sidequests than ever before, FS was the first multiplayer Zelda, TWW had sailing and a radically new artstyle, not to mention a larger focus on exploration than dungeons than, say, OoT, TP which was quite similar to OoT admittedly, but Wolf Link added something new, The DS games, which had the first ''on rails'' overworlds, and a more labyrinthine approach to the dungeons that hadn't been seen in quite some time, ALBW took the traditional Zelda formula and added more explorative elements to it, and I covered SS and BotW above, which are both opposites of eachother.

Zelda is an action adventure game that, to varying degrees, contains exploration, dungeon crawling, puzzles, combat, worldbuilding, RPG elements, and story. All of these games seem to fit the bill while still giving a different spin on the formula.

 

[DarkestLink]

I hear people criticize SS for not being a ''real Zelda game'' due to the fact that it's more linear and focuses more on dungeons and puzzles than other Zelda games,

What...? SS is less linear and focuses less on dungeons than previous 3D Zelda games--granted this has been an unfortunate trend for awhile now with each Zelda game post-OoT having less dungeon focus and PH starting the more non-linear trend.

That's not to say SS is a non-linear game, it's not. But since MM, the games have been rigidly linear. There's no room to do anything out of order in the main quest. PH and SS allowed the player to play the final third of each game out of order. It's not much, but that's still not as rigidly linear as previous titles.

So...what makes a Zelda game a Zelda game?

I'm assuming you don't mean literally, so in essence a game that follows the Zelda formula, which is the main problem with BOTW. It not only strays from the formula, it goes out of its way to ditch it. Without the formula, "The Legend of Zelda" is simply a name and nothing more. That's true for any game really. A formula is what separates something like Super Mario from Paper Mario.

The Legend of Zelda is a franchise that has always experimented and tried new things:

The first two games on the NES are different from eachother, with ALttP being different from those games by establishing the so called ''traditional Zelda formula'', LA was the first game released not to take place in Hyrule, OoT brought the series to 3D which changed how the series was played on consoles, MM and its time system shook up the formula, not to mention the larger focus on worldbuilding and sidequests than ever before, FS was the first multiplayer Zelda, TWW had sailing and a radically new artstyle, not to mention a larger focus on exploration than dungeons than, say, OoT, TP which was quite similar to OoT admittedly, but Wolf Link added something new, The DS games, which had the first ''on rails'' overworlds, and a more labyrinthine approach to the dungeons that hadn't been seen in quite some time, ALBW took the traditional Zelda formula and added more explorative elements to it, and I covered SS and BotW above, which are both opposites of eachother.

Unfortunately this is true. Zelda has had a bit of an identity crises for awhile. Before BOTW, SS was the last massive shake up. So that said, how could we define a Zelda game? Well if we accept every Zelda from LoZ to SS as Zelda titles, then it's simply a matter of deducing what elements have remained consistent. There are several key elements in SS, but which ones came from LoZ?

Combat? Certainly not. The combat was radically different from LoZ.

Puzzles? No. As cool as they are, puzzles were introduced in OoT. They're an improvement to the series, but not core to its identity.

The Overworld? Not every Zelda has had an overworld, and even if you don't include FS/FSA, the overworlds have been radically different. LoZ didn't have a peaceful overworld you could just lazily cruse through. It wasn't open either. It was a bunch of linear hallways filled to the brim with monsters. All 2D worlds were like this until OoT came and ruined it with the empty 3D model.

The only things that have stood the test of time up until this point have been dungeons and item progression. These have been in every single game since the original. In LoZ, dungeons take up 2/3rds of a 100% playthrough. The original idea behind Zelda didn't even include an overworld--it was meant to be a Mario Maker-esque Dungeon Maker. Item progression and obtaining information was the only realistic way to progress in LoZ.

So, with that said, I would say Dungeons and Item Progression and the core elements of the Zelda formula...unfortunately, since SS, ALBW took away Item Progression and BOTW took away Dungeons. At this point, there's nothing connecting the games anymore beyond their name. And since this seems to be the direction they wish to move in, I'd personally consider Zelda to be dead.

 

[Moblinking5000]

What...? SS is less linear and focuses less on dungeons than previous 3D Zelda games--granted this has been an unfortunate trend for awhile now with each Zelda game post-OoT having less dungeon focus and PH starting the more non-linear trend.

Aonuma said that his aim was to make the overworld feel like a dungeon. And the dungeon designs in SS are some of the most intricate designs in the series.

And I said MORE linear, not most linear. There's Zelda games that are even more linear, sure, but SS is still known, for better or for worse, for its linearity.

It not only strays from the formula, it goes out of its way to ditch it. Without the formula, "The Legend of Zelda" is simply a name and nothing more. That's true for any game really. A formula is what separates something like Super Mario from Paper Mario.

BotW follows the formula that I laid out fine.

Unfortunately this is true. Zelda has had a bit of an identity crises for awhile

I like that. It gives each game more of its own identity, and gives someone who may not care for a particular type of Zelda game a reason to try another.

Combat? Certainly not. The combat was radically different from LoZ.

I think you misunderstand what I meant when I laid out my criteria for a Zelda game; I was talking about there being a combat system in GENERAL for each game, not how similar the combat in SS is to LoZ, or any other game; some games have radically different styles of combat, but combat has existed in every Zelda title to some extent.

Puzzles? No. As cool as they are, puzzles were introduced in OoT. They're an improvement to the series, but not core to its identity.

In LoZ, you pushed a block to open a door. Simple? Yes, very much so. But it is still technically a puzzle. Puzzles have always existed in Zelda, even if they mostly got more complex as the series went on.

The Overworld? Not every Zelda has had an overworld, and even if you don't include FS/FSA

I'd say the map screen could be considered a form of overworld; you use it to go from point a to point b, afterall, even if it's the most linear form of overworld ever.

ALBW took away Item Progression

The Blue/Red Mail? The Upgrades to the MS? The ''Nice'' versions of the items?

BOTW took away Dungeons

The DBs are dungeons, even if you don't like them; they are interiors where you explore and/or solve puzzles to progress, engage in some combat, and fight a boss at the end, even getting a Heart Container from them. I would also argue that while HC is different, it too is a dungeon that focuses more on the explorative elements from LoZ-ALttP style dungeons than the puzzle based dungeons of modern Zelda games.

 

[Platinum Princess]

For me what makes a Zelda game is the start of the journey always brings with it excitement, a sense of adventure, a hunger for exploration and curiosity for what has caused the current dire situation that Link becomes involved in.

I play many games from RPGs to FPS and I will only see a Zelda game not being one when it focuses solely on combat and cuts down on dungeons and puzzles. That has yet to happen in any Zelda game I've played/seen.

 

[DarkestLink]

Aonuma said that his aim was to make the overworld feel like a dungeon.

True, and it was a nice return to form, but that doesn't mean it was a dungeon.

And I said MORE linear, not most linear.

More linear than what? Everything pre-OoT? Even in OoT, the only way you could go out of order was through sequence breaking, whereas in SS it was intentional.

I like that. It gives each game more of its own identity, and gives someone who may not care for a particular type of Zelda game a reason to try another.

I'm personally not a fan of that. It gives Zelda no foundation. Every series should have a distinct identity, which means they won't be for everyone. For example, I think the DKCR games are pure trash and subpar platformers. Does that mean DKCR should change to be more suited for me? No. Other people like it the way it is. They prefer this style of platformer. They can enjoy DKCR and I'll go enjoy something else. Everyone wins.

In addition, it's very hard for the series to grow because there's no chance to improve on ideas. They're constantly being thrown on the window instead of being improved, which leaves Zelda running around in circles.

In LoZ, you pushed a block to open a door. Simple? Yes, very much so. But it is still technically a puzzle.

Is finding my car's rear heater switch a puzzle too? That makes no sense. You just randomly push blocks, hoping that one might move. That's not a puzzle. It requires no thinking at all.

I'd say the map screen could be considered a form of overworld; you use it to go from point a to point b, afterall, even if it's the most linear form of overworld ever.

Going from point A to point B makes it an overworld? So I suppose literally everything is an overworld now?

The Blue/Red Mail? The Upgrades to the MS? The ''Nice'' versions of the items?

Those are upgrades, not item progression.

The DBs are dungeons, even if you don't like them;

No they're not. They don't play like dungeons at all. Not even a little bit.

they are interiors where you explore and/or solve puzzles to progress, engage in some combat, and fight a boss at the end, even getting a Heart Container from them.

Everything you listed is completely irrelevant to whether it's a dungeon or not. With this same logic, I could justify several caves as being dungeons as well as rule out several actual dungeons from being dungeons. It's an interior and it's part of the underworld, certainly, but not everything in the underworld is a dungeon. Many games have underworlds, Zelda included, but what seperates a Zelda Dungeon from anything else is the dungeon formula, which the DBs lack.

I would also argue that while HC is different, it too is a dungeon that focuses more on the explorative elements from LoZ-ALttP style dungeons than the puzzle based dungeons of modern Zelda games.

It's been awhile since I played aLttP, but I played LoZ a few days ago and I dunno what you're talking about with exploration. The dungeons in that game are insanely linear, even by modern standards.

 

[Moblinking5000]

More linear than what? Everything pre-OoT? Even in OoT, the only way you could go out of order was through sequence breaking, whereas in SS it was intentional.

Not really; in OoT, you could do Fire before Forest only missing the compass, and you could do Spirit before Shadow.

It gives Zelda no foundation.

I'd say that Zelda has a foundation based on the formula I've provided.

Does that mean DKCR should change to be more suited for me? No. Other people like it the way it is. They prefer this style of platformer. They can enjoy DKCR and I'll go enjoy something else. Everyone wins.

The only DKC game that I'd put on the same level as DKC:TF is DKC2, but I won't dwell too much on why since this isn't the topic for it.

That's not a puzzle. It requires no thinking at all.

What if a new player who has no previous experience with Zelda finds a door that won't open, and doesn't know how? And blocks are the only things in front of him, and he has to consider how to interact with said blocks?

Again, not the greatest puzzle, but still a puzzle.

Going from point A to point B makes it an overworld? So I suppose literally everything is an overworld now?

I meant more from going from point a to point b to find the next ''action packed'' part of the game, but I'll admit this could be considered a weak argument.

No they're not. They don't play like dungeons at all. Not even a little bit.

Everything you listed is completely irrelevant to whether it's a dungeon or not.

How? I missed the part where you got a HC from beating bosses not located in dungeons in previous Zeldas, or where main story areas required no puzzles/ exploration with a major boss at the end weren't considered dungeons.

It's been awhile since I played aLttP, but I played LoZ a few days ago and I dunno what you're talking about with exploration. The dungeons in that game are insanely linear, even by modern standards.

LoZ has many different ways to tackle the dungeons; in The Moon, for example, despite the number of locked doors, you can bomb enough walls to traverse around that, get the main item and beat the dungeon without using a key. And in The Manji, there are multiple paths involving keys that you can visit in any order.

 

[Spirit]

What makes a Zelda game a Zelda game?

At this point just having Zelda in the title makes them count for me.

TFH, SS and BotW are all very different and have all been recent for the series. Zelda has had an identity crisis for a while now, which isn't really a bad thing, but it does mean the core values and mechanics are increasingly harder to nail down.