The Legend Of Zelda - General Thread

strange, i thought sonics attempts to make changes tended to cause more disasters than not.

and isnt the mario stuff still all with the same formula anyway?

i mean you just dismissed most of what makes zelda zelda as "minor things that dont help" but then you go right around and use that same type of thing to build mario up while ignoring that what you had a problem with was the formula- in mario's case the same formula of "go into a world, grab stars, unlock more places and fight bosses" hasnt changed. yeah, new mechanics. know what else had new mechanics while keeping the same formula? zelda SS. zelda TP. zelda WW.

edited 28th Jul '14 9:09:44 AM by Tarsen

Not with all the massive changes in gameplay that I put in. It also helps that they've experimented with (invented, actually) the explorational 3D platformer.

I'd argue Sonic has a problem on the opposite end of the spectrum. The series is too quick to completely change game play styles and throw out things that work.

Mario typically runs through levels, jumps on Goombas, saves Peach...

Link typically runs through dungeons, cuts on Bokoblins, saves Zelda...

Sonic typically runs through zones, bounces on robots, saves the day...

Long-running video games are like TV episodes. They tend to do the same thing, just in different ways. And nobody can really fault them for that...

Japan has that thing about sticking with a franchise and making nearly annual releases so that people are typically guarateed to buy. I rather envy their work ethic...but I believe that that's what stresses them out way more than the west. :P They may be overworked, but they're disciplined.

edited 28th Jul '14 9:14:23 AM by Keybreak

@Waxing: You're still not addressing my point. If you have to strip away all the minutiae to make an argument that things are samey, then that's just a poor one.

edited 28th Jul '14 9:17:11 AM by Komodin

hey man, sometimes sonic relies on his friends to stomp on robots.

and sometimes he uses a sword.

and sometimes he makes use of the adorable alien menace.

and sometimes he auditions for dr jekyll and hyde and cribs off of kratos.

man. sonics gone through a lot.

edited 28th Jul '14 9:17:48 AM by Tarsen

At this point, some one will say that Hyrule Warriors is formulaic.

... It's based on Dynasty Warriors. That game is 90% formula.

Okay, I was considering that in mind but I was thinking by Legend of Zelda standards.

It is, but not following the Zelda formula.

People will bitch and gripe and moan but you just have to ignore them. Jack Chalker wrote both formulaic stuff AND more original work, and he's better remembered for his formulaic stuff. He never sold very well when he left the rail, so he just quit and kept banging out formulaic stuff like the Well World saga. Sure, I've said that if you've read one Chalker, you've read them all, but it's not a bad thing. Nor is it entirely accurate. The man worked in Sci-fi and Fantasy (And even blended them together in Sci-fantasy that worked with Myth.) And while, yes, the basic formula was that someone was dying or suicidal, found a portal to another world where magic or magitech existed, and wound up gaining a new lease on life by transforming into something else and going on a pun-fueled quest to save the Multiverse, he still changed it up enough to keep some of us buying his books and reading.

When formulas work, you stick with them. When people complain about it, you'll shoot yourself in the foot by following that vocal minority. Better to focus on the mechanics and find fun new toys to tell the story with rather than changing everything willy nilly.

Which is, sadly, the reason why the New Super Mario Bros series has no effort put into it. I think the whole series has outsold all of the 3D games combined, so they don't really need to reinvent NSMB yet.

@Keybreak: But do all those series have a specific number of levels? Zelda has always had 4-8 major dungeons.

edited 28th Jul '14 9:32:06 AM by WaxingName

No, as long as there are enough fans, they don't need to reinvent a thing. And think about that dungeon thing, in a series like Lo Z. Go fewer than four, and you have a game that's far too short. Sure, there's such a thing as leaving people wanting more, but you have to justify the cost of buying the game to start with. More than 8,and it starts to drag along hardcore and feel like padding.

4 to 8 is a pretty big difference. And with the way the game and dungeons work, how can you really have a different number? 1 to 3 is way to few unless maybe you made the dungeons huge, like making it nearly a Metroidvania game. The only game that had 4 dungeons was MM, and a lot of people think it was too few.

More than 8 would probably be too many for them to make in time for release unless they were all really short dungeons.

And technically, not every game works like a normal Zelda game with dungeons. There's Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures.

edited 28th Jul '14 9:40:49 AM by KuroBaraHime

The FS games are minor exceptions. Every series has those. Except the ones that can change enough so that each one is worth playing, of course (where every game is an exception).

How about we talk about something that won't cause us to bicker on whether the The Legend of Zelda is too formulaic or not, like the upcoming games.

You can say that sort of thing about Zelda as well. The original Zelda was more about positionoing combat and exploration. ALttP started adding in puzzles and a real story with dialouge. A very basic extra axis of movement was added allowing for things like enemies jumping and flying out of way, and more than one floor in a single room. OoT moved the series to 3D, totally changing combat and dungeon design. The Z-Target was added to allow for focused combat. MM has a 3 day time limit system, requiring you go back in time and start certain events over every several hours.

I could keep going. It's not like those other series really change more than Zelda does. You can make any series sound same-y if you break it down to several very basic things they keep between games. Especially so if it's not every game, and some are being ignored for being expections.

Pretty much the only people who think that every Zelda game is the same are are people who don't like Zelda games anyway.

alright then.

next topic: links recent forays into fashion.

do want or do want?

Again, Waxing, you cannot just dismiss the details as being "minor". That doesn't help your argument.

Can I go for the Meh option?

edited 28th Jul '14 10:01:22 AM by Komodin

All Link did was add a scarf to his attire in a spin-off departure of his own game... much like another hero who suddenly donned a scarf when he got a game that departed from the usual formula.

I don't want it to be a mainstay in Link's design, but I wouldn't mind an occasional nod to it. Maybe as a removable bonus accessory or something. As long as Link's alternate tunics/armor keep getting aesthetic variations to the main green tunic, I think I'm fine with Link as he is.

edited 28th Jul '14 10:14:59 AM by Customer

Also the good thing about franchises is that once they go on long enough they will have Stopped Numbering Sequels. Which means that anyone of any age can pick up any game and not have missed out on SO much backstory.

So any formula they come across will still be new to them.

edited 28th Jul '14 10:09:59 AM by Keybreak

At least I listed examples of series that aren't so formulaic.

edited 28th Jul '14 10:10:11 AM by WaxingName

No you didn't. Those series are just as formulatic as Zelda.

Darunia's trailer was pretty awesome, huh?

@Kuro: They are? They certainly don't feel like it...

Darunia will rock you like a hurricane of Somaria.