How the hell does LTTP’s dark world\light world mechanic get a free pass? Total gimmick right there! But you never mention that, because LTTP is an older Zelda and therefore must be good.
That wasn’t a gimmick – It simply expanded the overworld without changing the way you travel.
Because gimmick is what you say when you don’t like something new.
wait a minute, the fact that you could travel any where you want to in wind waker is a bad thing?
The problem with using the word ‘gimmick’ in a serious discussion involving video games is it tends to be a very loaded word. Its hard to take some of your comments on the latest zeldas seriously when from a different perspective, someone could easily claim that the older zeldas also added ‘gimmicks’. I just wish you’d used a better term for your video, but the overwhelming negativity of the analysis doesn’t make for an interesting investigation of the subject matter.
Now with that out of the way, I enjoyed that you touched on the increased emphasis on story in the new Zeldas compared to the old. I don’t think you’ve really explored these as best as you could though. The reasoning from Nintendo for adding a larger story to the game I believe, is because they think they need to add a reason to keep playing further than the gameplay. Which is quite sad when you think about it, because the underlying mechanics could be so much stronger if they were allowed to develop.
I think Nintendo is also quite scared that no one will want to play a new Zelda if they don’t hold your hand with story and lengthy tutorials, explanations of where to go, what you just saw etc (highlighted for the third time in the last minute I might add). Skyward Sword is the worst offender so far, going as far as to ensure you know where to go by a) presenting you with a cutscene, b) having a character tell you what happened and then c) having the sword spirit tell you what you just heard again, except with even greater emphasis on coloured words.
Like you said though, Zelda is not going to change, look at the huge scores from viewers and the record sales. Zelda’s not dead, but its not likely to be what you want it to be.
Anyway my 2 cents, cheers.
Hang on one sec, Windwaker was a ‘gimmic’ because it had you travel on the ocean and travel was seemeless between zones. So if you made windwaker into a Link or skateboard game, and made you go through transition screens through each zone, Windwaker would be much better?
Seriously, you seem like an intelligent guy but a lot of your posts lately make you seem like a grumpy, unappreciated, coniseur of old games with clunky, unintuitive mechanics due to tech limitations or errors.
If you are going to keep on doing these posts in the same vein, atleast put some effort into actual detailed analysis on gameplay design rather than “this ‘feels’ less cool.”
How can you hate on Wind Waker? It’s the freshest thing to happen to the Zelda franchise since OoT.
A lot of the zelda games, old and new, have relied on “gimmicks” to differentiate themselves from the pack. As long as these gimmicks are interesting and evolve within the game so that they do not become a chore (the waggling of the Wiimote became a chore for me in TP, for example) then I don’t see the big deal.
Gimmicks are things in products that try to differentiate themselves from others products, but are ultimately pointless.
I do not think you understand what gimmicks are.
I don’t think your jargon is as buzzword jargon as it could gimmick.
Clearly Nintendo should let Falcom make a Zelda game. Ys is already the real man’s Zelda anyway.
I’m a very old fan of the zelda series, ever since the early days, and i can honestly say i agree 100% with you. you didn’t slam zelda, but showed its decline.
people need to get over their Egos and realize that this trend continues to happen in nearly every game franchise, and Zelda is not immune.
Nintendo are not gods anymore and throwing them money for a new way to waggle your sword will not fix the problem.
I think The Legend of Zelda series, like many of Nintendo’s “classics”, is declining not because of “gimmicks” but more because each new game in the franchise brings very little that is new to the genre or the franchise itself.
Whilst many video games use the same basic structures for their storylines (see BioWare’s games or read a few of the classic fantasy books that many medieval fantasy games are based off), Zelda hasn’t really changed drastically since that fateful day in 1986.
As the video explained accurately, the Legend of Zelda series was a game about exploration and achievement, and whilst the games still offer these, it no longer feels as epic as it used to simply because it’s something we’ve all done before. This is a common trend for most of Nintendo’s classic titles, such as the Mario or Metroid series.
The term “gimmick” might be a bad word for some, but I actually think it’s used in it’s correct definition in this case: A gimmick is generally defined as a marketing tool used to attract attention to a product. Gimmicks aren’t inherently bad but most “gimmicky” methods provide a lack of meaning to the overall product itself.
The problem with the new travel systems in recent Zelda games isn’t that they’re horrible, uninspiring or unoriginal, it’s just that they provide no purpose other than going from Point A to Point B. In some of the games you get some very cheap mini-games associated with them but these are just gimmicks added to the gimmicks.
Travelling the overworld via a boat or a train definitely attracts attention initially, but realise that you’ll be using that system for the entire game and you’ll primarily only be using it to, as stated, go from Point A to Point B. The entire concept, just like walking in many games, gets tedious and repetitive after a while, and that is where the concept of a gimmick being “irrelevant” or “meaningless” comes into play.
I enjoy exploring in The Legend of Zelda series, I enjoy seeing the new dungeon and boss designs which I’ve always thought are fantastic, and I also enjoy the sense of progression which as linear as it is, is still somehow satisfying in the games.
Most of these new travel gimmicks such as using a boat, train or flight are only used in one game, making their purpose as a gimmick very obvious, but at the end of the day, who cares? I don’t. I don’t need a boat or a plane to explore the world and have fun. Using them is fun for a while but it hardly adds a new dynamic to the overall design of the game.
Miyamoto isn’t really in charge of the series. In his games, he was generally opposed to cinematic presentation and reliance on story. Eiji Aonuma is currently in charge of the series, and he is the one that gave the push for a more story based Zelda.
The new items are absolutely keys. The Roc’s feather is a great example of how an item can avoid being just a key, by giving greater combat and overworld functionality. It was my favorite 2d Zelda item apart from the Roc’s cape.
Super Metroid did this best, all the items were used both for progression and fighting. Every new item made you evaluate the world differently and see new paths you could take. Of any game in the Nintendo canon, Zelda stands to learn from super Metroid and the pre-other-m Metroids in general.
In the new Zelda games, items are given designated spots that they work on, and otherwise cannot really enable the player to interact with the environment, unless an enemy demands it as part of their pattern.
I know you’ve read this essay by now, read it again: http://tevisthompson.com/saving-zelda/
You touch on some interesting points when talking about the presentation of story and tutorials, but everything else feels like you’re just throwing around very loosely defined terms.
Oh and everything after the 5:20 makes you sound very, well, childish I suppose.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>