• 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.

General Modern What Modern Zelda is Missing

Nintendo have put themselves in a bit of a rut. There are so many different gameplay mechanics, artstyles, and storytelling methods across the various games that it's impossible to please everyone. There is no consistency within the series. I'd go so far as disagree with you about the consistency of the first three games. Yes, there were quite a bit of secrets to discover in the original three titles, but Zelda II's gameplay differences were a larger distinguishing factor and more important in creating a specific niche for that game than the elements that carried over from The Legend of Zelda.

This will always be a conversation topic for Zelda players as Nintendo likes to throw a complete curveball every few years, and as you stated, the series creators constantly throw around the phrase that the next game will be a complete reinvention of the series. I won't go into too much detail about that nebulous claim here although I do believe that creating such standards of hype for upcoming games only causes frustration upon release. The last few Zelda games, especially, have been alienating to large portions of the fanbase.

The thing is, the constant critical success of the series gives the developers more leeway in taking risks and continuing to experiment with the defining characteristics of the Zelda formula so to speak. The commercial side of things is a bit blurrier since Nintendo has preserved much of the foundation laid by Ocarina of Time over 15 years ago, which happens to be the best selling game in the franchise; that said, that's more of a constraint for the story and not the actual gameplay.

I'm not sure how well this idea would work out, but what if Nintendo toyed with the ideas of various subseries like other well established franchises including Mega Man do? Nintendo could periodically revisit a certain style of game to please fans who prefer that direction. This could be used to return to the very start of the series creating 8-bit adventures similar to the the original NES game and the Gameboy titles (returning to the Megaman example, this idea would be similar to Megaman 9 and 10 for that franchise). A Link Between Worlds was well received so a similar treatment could be used for the more modern top-down games started by A Link to the Past. It's a theoretically simple solution to establish some continuity in the franchise.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Nintendo have put themselves in a bit of a rut. There are so many different gameplay mechanics, artstyles, and storytelling methods across the various games that it's impossible to please everyone. There is no consistency within the series. I'd go so far as disagree with you about the consistency of the first three games. Yes, there were quite a bit of secrets to discover in the original three titles, but Zelda II's gameplay differences were a larger distinguishing factor and more important in creating a specific niche for that game than the elements that carried over from The Legend of Zelda.
That was already recognized in the thread. that doesn't change that all 3 games had secrets that made the overworld worth exploring. So even though Zelda II was designed almost completely differently, the core ideas to allow exploration and finding secrets was still part of the series.

This will always be a conversation topic for Zelda players as Nintendo likes to throw a complete curveball every few years, and as you stated, the series creators constantly throw around the phrase that the next game will be a complete reinvention of the series. I won't go into too much detail about that nebulous claim here although I do believe that creating such standards of hype for upcoming games only causes frustration upon release. The last few Zelda games, especially, have been alienating to large portions of the fanbase.

The thing is, the constant critical success of the series gives the developers more leeway in taking risks and continuing to experiment with the defining characteristics of the Zelda formula so to speak. The commercial side of things is a bit blurrier since Nintendo has preserved much of the foundation laid by Ocarina of Time over 15 years ago, which happens to be the best selling game in the franchise; that said, that's more of a constraint for the story and not the actual gameplay.

I'm not sure how well this idea would work out, but what if Nintendo toyed with the ideas of various subseries like other well established franchises including Mega Man do? Nintendo could periodically revisit a certain style of game to please fans who prefer that direction. This could be used to return to the very start of the series creating 8-bit adventures similar to the the original NES game and the Gameboy titles (returning to the Megaman example, this idea would be similar to Megaman 9 and 10 for that franchise). A Link Between Worlds was well received so a similar treatment could be used for the more modern top-down games started by A Link to the Past. It's a theoretically simple solution to establish some continuity in the franchise.

A direct sequel would be stupid IMO. I believe ALBW was such a gimmicky title...that game was well received as much as any other other Zelda recently. I dont believe having that type of continuity is necessary for a series that constantly reuses similar elements, but also is quick to throw them away. However, there need to be games designed for a subseries of sequels. similar to the four swords subseries (but much more well thought out)
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
I want a game that offers more reasons to explore it. not the little scavenger hunts we go through....ALBW was an excuse to make a new game on 3DS.
Also, the stuff needs to be found need to be more than just heart pieces and rupees, maybe better optional items and weapons.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Jokes aside, Zelda really needs more to do than the optional minigame. Back then, a minigame would show u what u can earn right before u played it so you know hat you could be getting.
 

Link Floyd

ᵒⁿ ᵗʰᵉ ʳᵘⁿ
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
I always felt like modern Zelda games were too easy to figure out. The reason OoT and MM are so great is because they required real skill to complete. I feel like the dungeons and puzzles have become too simple. The only game (recently) that I feel was truly challenging was SS.
 
Joined
May 4, 2014
Location
California
I always felt like modern Zelda games were too easy to figure out. The reason OoT and MM are so great is because they required real skill to complete. I feel like the dungeons and puzzles have become too simple. The only game (recently) that I feel was truly challenging was SS.


Can't say about MM but I breezed right through Ocarina. Even the infamous Water Temple only took me over a week the first time and I refused to look at a walkthrough. Never beat a Zelda game so fast. The older games like the first two and the Oracle games, now Those are a challenge!
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Technically the Oracle games came after Ocarina and MM. which is why they share OoT and MM characters. Regardless, i think 3D Zeldas are simply at a different level.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom