Zelda - A series of "Crucibles"?

Malstrom defines Zelda, disses Iwata's description of it

Originally Posted by Malstrom

Zelda is a crucible.

What does this mean?

All Zelda games are composed in two distinct parts: the Overworld and the Dungeons. The interaction between the two is what is key.

In the Overworld, the world is at war with you in some way. Even if the enemies are just going in circles shooting rocks. In Zelda II, black figures would appear and try to catch you. In Link to the Past, the guards were after you and later Ganon. The point is that the Overworld is not a nice place to Link.

Link is overwhelmed with the Overworld. The Overworld is more powerful than Link is. Link cannot go anywhere and will be killed pretty fast in many areas. Like Icarus, if he flies too close to the sun, he burns.

This is why the dungeons exist. The dungeons are crucibles for Link to grow. Dungeons are all filled with nasty and devious traps. In many ways, the dungeons aren’t even “fun”. Link goes through this crucible to get the treasure and the power-ups.

The “moment” of Zelda is when Link exits a completed dungeon and feels the sun of the Overworld. It is then that the player can’t wait to explore his new powers in the Overworld, to explore new places.

The definition of Zelda is in the dungeon/overworld as crucible/world. Link grows in ability and power not in the pleasant overworld but in the dungeons. It is not so much the feeling of growth as it is the feeling of crucible. Link goes through the “hard adventure” for the reward of exiting the dungeon and having that new overworld experience.

This reveals where Zelda games have gone off track. The modern Zelda game is one dungeon after the next with the Overworld being nothing more than road to the next dungeon or a cave to another piece of heart.

Think of the original Legend of Zelda. The Overworld, then, was very vast. Every time Link came up to the surface with a new heart, a new item, or a new upgrade, the overworld changed. Of course, the Overworld did not literally change. It was the same exact Overworld. But Link changed. He can’t wait to re-visit the Overworld again after his “transformation” the dungeon caused him. Zelda games are these crucible and then transformation experiences again and again, one after another.

Think of Zelda II. Finishing a palace guaranteed you at least a new level. Levels were very important in Zelda II since the game was like Dragon Quest in that lower levels limited where you could go. New items opened up new geographical locations.

Think of Link to the Past. While the Overworld in Zelda III was very weak, Nintendo put in two Overworlds. Getting the hammer changed Link. He could now explore the Dark World far more than he ever could. Getting that damn duck really changed Link. He could zip around in the Overworld.

Ocarina of Time. Wind Waker. Twilight Princess. Similar situation but with rapidly shrinking Overworlds. The problem with the shrinking Overworld is that players are going to wonder what the point is to finish a dungeon. Zelda is more than just one dungeon after another.

No other game truly has this crucible/world type thing going back and forth as Zelda does with its Overworld and dungeons. Metroid doesn’t have it. Mario doesn’t have it. The really old RPG games might have had it, but they clearly don’t now.

The only game that comes to mind that does have this crucible/world would be World of Warcraft and perhaps Diablo. The Instance dungeons and Raids are not fun by any means. However, they are designed as crucibles. The player spends time torturing himself in the Raid or Instance for the great loot at the end and during the journey. It is not the Raid that is enjoyable but the transformation that comes when the player returns to the surface.

Ironically, frustration and non-fun are why Zelda is Zelda. It wouldn’t be a crucible if it is easy. And this is perhaps why fans complain about how easy recent Zelda games have been. The complaints about the Overworld also work because a weak or small Overworld diminishes the crucible. Why march into a nasty dungeon to torture oneself to defeat the Evil Monster if the world outside is nothing but a road? Or an ocean?

What do you think? Does this explain the TP-hate? Does it give insight to what we will experience in ZWii? Will I fail my exams?

Oh god, the questions...

tl;dr.

Lol. Just kidding. I skimmed it, but he's basically just stating the obvious. Zelda needs a better overworld. It shouldn't really be giant land masses/ocean masses of empty space. Go back to ALttP and LA. Every "square" was well put together and had something big going on. A prairie, a swamp etc. 3D Zeldas have that stuff, maybe, but they branch these things together with flat plains/blue space. Maybe they should try it differently.

I see where Malstrom's going, but back in 2D we had WAY more controlled environments. Specially on overhead games level design was straight-to-the point and lent itself to challenging, filled with enemies squares. With the jump to 3D came a new focus to looks, and Zelda always nailed this aspect. Every scenario looks great and even the bland plains from TP were a joy to look at. Filling them with enemies could detract from the pictoresque feeling the series has develop. Besides, it's not like the combat in the series is particularly enganing, specially after its jump to 3D. It resumes itself to repeated striking and sometimes a rinse-and-repeat strategy. It doesn't even lend itself to old-school spacial controlling, for 3D makes it very difficult to be aware of your surroundings(see Ninja Gaiden).

However, the lack of exploration in the 3D overworlds really annoys me. There should be WAY, WAY more instances to use newly acquired items, gaps you could not cross, etc. etc.

The problem lies in making exploration fruitful. Having the player go through a "little journey" to a previously unreachable place to find a chest of rupees was lame back in 2D zeldas and remains being lame. I'd say they should make rupees more useful and their acquisition less of a bummer, but I worry about the paths it could lead the series.

However, it is very hard to precisely describe the series and determine a formula that it must follow, specially after the jump to 3D and back to 2D. You could say that it's about block pushing and wall blowing that you'd be as wrong as you're right. “If the Zelda staff made it, it’s Zelda!” is a lame, lame response, though.

I see what he's saying, he wants Zelda to get back in touch with it's roots. Miyamoto did say he wants games to be much simpler again, so it's possible something like this could happen again.

I see what he means; that the aim of Zelda should not be the dungeons themselves, but using the reward to explore the overworld.

I guess an example would be oblivion (sorry if I keep refrencing that game) where I had to force myself through oblivion gates and dungeons, but it was all worth it to come out with a powerful new ring or an enchanted weapon, or perhaps loads of valuable equipment.

Problem is, Zelda's overworld is TINY compared to games like Fallout and Oblivion. Don't get me wrong, Zelda is more FUN than Fallout or Oblivion, but it really could benefit from a bigger, more detailed overworld.

But, as I said in another thread, TP was only a Gamecube game after all. SSBB has proven that dual layer (roughly 9GB) discs can work on the wii. If Bethesda could cram Oblivion onto a DVD9, with all it's hi-res textures, Nintendo could easilly put together a world greater or equal to in size that Cyrodiil (Oblivion's world).

Look. In Zelda, you are meant to be saving a vast kingdom. You just don't get that feeling when said "Kingdom" is made up of an empty town, a town where nobody talks to you, and loads of empty fields.

Originally Posted by Julian

I see where Malstrom's going, but back in 2D we had WAY more controlled environments. Specially on overhead games level design was straight-to-the point and lent itself to challenging, filled with enemies squares. With the jump to 3D came a new focus to looks, and Zelda always nailed this aspect. Every scenario looks great and even the bland plains from TP were a joy to look at. Filling them with enemies could detract from the pictoresque feeling the series has develop. Besides, it's not like the combat in the series is particularly engaging, specially after its jump to 3D. It resumes itself to repeated striking and sometimes a rinse-and-repeat strategy. It doesn't even lend itself to old-school spacial controlling, for 3D makes it very difficult to be aware of your surroundings(see Ninja Gaiden).

Let's break this down:

1. @bolded: I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I also don't believe that putting enemies into the overworld is the only way to challenge the player. However, if you ask me, that "pictoresque" feeling does little for the gameplay if it comes at the cost of actual gameplay, and shouldn't be welcome on a system like the Wii.

2. Then make the combat more varied.

3. Zelda's always had a well-made camera AI. I don't think that being unaware of your surroundings is an issue.

Originally Posted by Double A

Let's break this down:

1. @bolded: I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I also don't believe that putting enemies into the overworld is the only way to challenge the player. However, if you ask me, that "pictoresque" feeling does little for the gameplay if it comes at the cost of actual gameplay, and shouldn't be welcome on a system like the Wii.

2. Then make the combat more varied.

3. Zelda's always had a well-made camera AI. I don't think that being unaware of your surroundings is an issue.

Let's break THIS down

1.They are obviously not mutually exclusive. You could have wandering groups of Moblins, the occasional werewolf at night, etc. The greatest problem about Zelda's overworld is its predictabilityç. It takes away from the adventure. you KNOW where the enemies are and they'll only engage if you're very close to them. It's like combat is a very , very selective thing and it detracts from the journey aspect. If I could see a group of moblins attacking a passer-by and got a tiny reward(say, 10 rupees) for saving him, things would get much more interesting. Besides, I'm a huge defender of PEOPLE on the overworld. The pictoresque feeling I feel should never be removed from the games, for those are brilliant games with superb art design and sometimes it's just nice to stop for a while and watch the scenery. Even if it means having to beat up a bunch of Stalfos on the process >D But yeah, enemies are not he only way. But I'll say again. It's hard to keep players interested in exploring in a game where Heart Pieces are the be all and end all. Maybe they could split the container in 6 this time and actually make it more rewarding to around exploring, instead of giving away pieces in retarded locations.

2.Precisely.

3.Zelda's camera always dealt with limited numbers of enemies and even on the occasional crowd of WW, the non-locked ones would kind of stay back or, at least, attack less. The problem with Zelda Wii is that, for greater immersion, they'll probably go with a VERY over the shoulder vier or a semi-translucid-back Link. This would make enganing several enemies very difficult. On the bright side, I can dream they'll just say "You know what? F*** this. Let's make it tough". And keep the camera away from link, allowing for more space and crowd-controlling gameplay.

Always a pleasure reading your posts, Double A. If anything, they should be triple A

Originally Posted by Julian

The problem with Zelda Wii is that, for greater immersion, they'll probably go with a VERY over the shoulder vier or a semi-translucid-back Link.

Heh? No. The PS3 and 360 are the "immersion" machines.

Nintendo's aim has never been ultra-supersonic immersion. I think you can sleep well tonight.

Originally Posted by Julian

Always a pleasure reading your posts, Double A. If anything, they should be triple A

Careful, I have a massive ego .

But it always does feel nice to be appreciated. Thanx, man.

Personally, I think that Malstrom's definition of "Zelda" is horribly inaccurate. Even as far back as Zelda 1, the dungeons were never "torture" as he puts it. The only time I had to force myself to keep playing was during Zelda 2 when I had to grind for levels, and that grinding tended to take place in the overworld.

For me, "Zelda" is game in which both the dungeons and the overworld locations are equally rewarding experiences, and we progress through one to be able to visit more of the other.

Of course, you guys probably think that my definition of "Zelda" is inaccurate as well, and you no doubt have your own idea about what "Zelda" is. And that's why Iwata is spot on when he says that the essence of Zelda is "undefinable", because everyone's definition of Zelda is different.

---

We may have some discrepancy in the understanding of the word immersion here. Not a big surprise, given that it's thrown around so much nowadays we all have no idea what it means anymore. Nintendo has been trying to make videogames immersive not through visuals(which I don't find THAT inherent to true immersion) or audio(which I DO find important to true immersion). Instead, they have gone through the physical route. Remeber Miyamoto touting the feeling of waving your arms like a sword back when TP was nearing launch? It turned out to be a wrist-flicking bummer, but anyway, you COULD swing it like a sword. They have found a very functional and intuitive camera for the Motion+, and that is the behind-the-back, semi-tranlucent character one. Having a distant Link from the camera with 1:1 controls could prove to be very difficult to control, for the accessory's tendency to de-calibrate could leave you cursing the game for not doing what you tell it to do.

I actually HOPE they do not go the 1:1 route, having, instead, a big variety of movents. Say, slice up, down, left, right, the 4 diagonals and a stab. Add to that different movements to each one of those 8 depending on the position of the control stick. 1:1 without feedback relies on re-stancing, and that lends to the weird shaky, astounded Mii in Wii Sports resort's Sword fighting. Besides, it could be very weird to see link moving his arms exactly as you do. They could give us some control over his arms positioning, but deprive us from it mid-slice. It would allow more space management and not take away the rolls, backflips and sidesteps, or make them feel weird.

Either way, I'd like to see responses to how you'd deal with allying 1:1 with Zelda gameplay, specially when it comes to a variety of enemies on-screen that naturally demands a more distant camera.

Sean Malstrom is my kind of gamer. He has a pretty weird pathos in his writing that can seem abrasive or a bit naive, but I think he's right on the money with all of his analyses and opinions. He understands what makes games worthy of purchase and play and what makes a good game/console.

Originally Posted by Meeps

Personally, I think that Malstrom's definition of "Zelda" is horribly inaccurate. Even as far back as Zelda 1, the dungeons were never "torture" as he puts it. The only time I had to force myself to keep playing was during Zelda 2 when I had to grind for levels, and that grinding tended to take place in the overworld.

I don't think Malstrom means "torture" in the conventional sense. He is comparing the dungeons to "trials" we pass through so we can explore more of the overworld.

Originally Posted by Julian

Nintendo has been trying to make videogames immersive not through visuals(which I don't find THAT inherent to true immersion) or audio(which I DO find important to true immersion). Instead, they have gone through the physical route. Remeber Miyamoto touting the feeling of waving your arms like a sword back when TP was nearing launch? It turned out to be a wrist-flicking bummer, but anyway, you COULD swing it like a sword. They have found a very functional and intuitive camera for the Motion+, and that is the behind-the-back, semi-tranlucent character one. Having a distant Link from the camera with 1:1 controls could prove to be very difficult to control, for the accessory's tendency to de-calibrate could leave you cursing the game for not doing what you tell it to do.

Putting a Zelda game into that 1st-person or 3rd-person view would call for a drastic change in gameplay, one that I don't think Nintendo is willing to risk, especially since they have begun to embrace their roots more closely.

I don't believe that we'll see widespread use of 1:1 control over Link's sword in ZWii.

Originally Posted by Julian

I actually HOPE they do not go the 1:1 route, having, instead, a big variety of movents. Say,. slice up, down, left, right, the 4 diagonals and a stab. Add to that different movements to each one of those 8 depending on the position of the control stick. 1:1 without feedback relies on re-stancing, and that lends to the weird shaky, astounded Mii in Wii Sports resort's Sword fighting. Besides, it could be very weird to see link moving his arms exactly as you do. They could give us some control over his arms positioning, but deprive us from it mid-slice. It would allow more space management and not take away the rolls, backflips and sidesteps, or make them feel weird.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Julian

Either way, I'd like to see responses to how you'd deal with allying 1:1 with Zelda gameplay, specially when it comes to a variety of enemies on-screen that naturally demands a more distant camera

I don't think they'll give us 1:1 control over his sword. Actually, I think it'd be a better idea to design new items around WM+, so we still get our 1:1 experience without giving up the normal sword gameplay.

Originally Posted by Double A

Putting a Zelda game into that 1st-person or 3rd-person view would call for a drastic change in gameplay, one that I don't think Nintendo is willing to risk, especially since they have begun to embrace their roots more closely.

Actually to tell you the truth I have thought of a method that could utilize both 1st person (or third person) and 1:1 motion control. It actually reminded me of "Zelda Wii is different then all the titles before it, but is not radically different." because it's different but the same. I might typ it up in a topic if people want me to.

Back on topic, this really explains why I like aLttP a ton better than TP. I hated running through the boring TP overworld.

Here's what I think for the Zelda overworld/dungeon balance:
Make the overworld smaller, but more compact. More enemies, more holes, more treasure chests, more random people in monster infested areas. Then you make 80% of the Overworld explorable at the start, and make the order in which you complete the dungeons more flexible. That way the Overworld can be explored as the player wishes, dungeon delves don't seem so forced, and people will be more excited about the 20% of the overworld they can't explore than, say, the 90% you couldn't even see at the beginning of TP.

Take Oot and TP. OoT's Hyrule Field is practically empty. There's almost nothing to do there as an adult and even less to do as a kid. There aren't even enemies! You can only go to certain areas when the game lets you.

TP solved this problem by adding enemies, more caves, and holes. But the Overworld itself was too vast, and you only got to explore it chunk by chunk when the game's storyline let you.

WW and MM's are more like I'd like to see it. Much of WW's Overworld doesn't have to be searched at all, so funnily enough, it's more fun to do so. And MM's Overworld is tiny compared to OoT's and TP's, but it's crammed full of stuff. Both of these overworlds are almost completely explorable right off the get-go. Since there are few dungeons in MM/WW, you don't feel as forced to explore like in OoT/TP either.

So, in short: Make the Overworld smaller and more crammed, and make each dungeon a more unique, special experience. Players should spend more time outside of dungeons than in them.

@Ashanark:I'd deffinitely give up a little space for a more cohesive, entertaing overworld. MM seems a little TOO crowded for my liking, but it is deffinitely the closest to previous 2D games, with the varied themes and all, but I'm not sure how much I like it. There's this constant sense of dread and the other Zelda's 3d overworlds have turned into a therapeutical, laid back exploration. I'd like more enemies indeed, but MM was way too crammed with them, to the point of being VERY unsettling. That was the point of the whole game, and as much as I find it brilliant, I'm not sure how much I want to go through another entire game on the series with this feeling.

@The 10th Rider: Please post it. Should Nintendo have kept the analog, clickable L button(now Z) I would have a fast, functional answer. As it stands, I find it somewhat hard to implement for lack of buttons alone. It should be accesible, that's for sure. Maybe up on the d-pad?

Don't make the overworld smaller, just put lots (LOOOOTTSSS) more into it.

The over-world size in TP was a good size, it was just empty. If the next overworld is of the same size as TP's then that's fine with me. Just add more stuff in it!

Originally Posted by Dark~Knight

The over-world size in TP was a good size, it was just empty. If the next overworld is of the same size as TP's then that's fine with me. Just add more stuff in it!

Yeah! That's completely not what I just said.

Ya, the overworlds should definitley be given more importance when it comes to its productivity, but it really isn't that bad the way it is now. I mean... Zelda is a near perfect game as it is, but it seams that it may need some retuning.

The way I would make 1:1 work would be that when Link locks on to an enemy, the camera shifts to a view similar to the wii sports resort view when swordfighting.
Normal waggle controls would be used when you're not locked on to anything.
Or they could just restrict the 1:1 controls to certain events and instances such as boss battles and mini-games.

Originally Posted by MrBaconsock

Or they could just restrict the 1:1 controls to certain events and instances such as boss battles and mini-games.

Why don'y they just design some new items around WM+, so we get our 1:1 experience without giving up our Zelda-style sword gameplay.