Could today's Zelda fanbase be universally pleased?

Originally Posted by Ningan the Lone Ninja

To answer the title's question: Never. (Except OOT).

Fans are given OOT. They love it. When MM is released, they hate it for it's time limitations and lack of dungeons. Then WW is released. They hate the graphics, saying they're too 'cartoony' and think it has just 4 dungeons, when in fact it has 7, almost the same number as OOT. TP is released, and fans hate the graphics for being 'too dark/dull', the exact opposite of WW. PH is released and fans think it's the worst Zelda game yet, saying how much they hate the Temple of the Ocean King as well as the graphics, which bear in mind, are still developing, which leads to ST.

This is an oversimplification of the entire situation for multiple reasons:

-Not everyone dislikes those respective games for the reasons you've stated. In fact, I would be surprised if you could find one gamer to whom everything you've said applies.
-It completely disregards other legitimate reasons gamers have for disliking those games (not that these reasons are illegitimate).
-In the case of WW and TP's graphics, isn't it plausible that gamers merely want a moderate artstyle? That would be totally consistent with them disliking WW's cartoony artstyle and TP's dark artstyle.

From my point of view, fans are being entirely consistent for the most part. Perhaps there won't be a Zelda game that is a favourite of everyone. But there most certainly can be a Zelda game that makes steps towards satisfying the vast majority of the fanbase.

As time progresses, fans gradually realise that they did not appreciate the games for what they were. Now, fans are demanding a remake of MM, a game they previously despised. Soon, fans will begin to like WW again: I have already seen a thread called 'Wind Waker for 3DS?'. Maybe in around 3-5 years, people will want a re-release of TP, and, just maybe, PH too!

I blame this on the decline of Zelda. If newer Zelda games are declining in quality, then it's inevitable that older fans (and most likely newer ones too) will find the older games better. But they won't go back too far for fear of playing something entirely different.

Appreciation doesn't come from nowhere, and neither does a desire to play older games.

This cycle will probably continue until the end of time. Right now, people are criticising SS for being too linear and easy, with Fi as a 'hand-holding guide'.

I shudder to imagine the future Zelda game that comes out that makes people begin to appreciate SS.

I'm just gonna say that I've loved every Zelda I've played, which is all of them,

To expand on what Double A said, I just want to say that, for all varying viewpoints that you find in the Zelda series, if you look hard enough between all of that, there is a discernible pattern (from the way people reacted to WW at first, to the universal praise TP received from it's first footage, to the huge sales of TP, being beaten only by OoT) of the fanbase that should paint a clear path for Nintendo if they want to have the largest sales possible for the franchise.

I mean, ST's sales were borderline pathetic for a Zelda game, which goes to show that people don't just forget or accept a Zelda game after a while (PH was just that bad).

Furthermore, people's complaints are largely the same for each of the recent games. People always complain about the linearity, they always complain about easy difficulty, they complain about the handholding, etc. People aren't just going to accept these things all of a sudden. It's just that, as each game further emphasizes these negative qualities, they're going to point out how the past game did something better.

Originally Posted by Double A

This is an oversimplification of the entire situation for multiple reasons:

Of course it is, I was just talking about the majority of the fan base. I loved WW & PH when they first came out, and still love them today.

Originally Posted by Double A

I shudder to imagine the future Zelda game that comes out that makes people begin to appreciate SS.

I know this is off-topic, but why do you hate SS? (And please, for the love of God, don't say Fi.)

I highly doubt we will ever see a game that will please absolutely everybody. The series has been divided into so many little pieces that it is likely almost impossible to please everyone or even the vast majority. For example: Some want realistic art styles, others want cell shading. Some want more focus on story, others want more focus on action and freedom. Some want the games to become more serious and "dark" others want it to keep its humour and "bright" atmosphere. Some want the series to be more medieval, others want it to break out of that stereotype. Some want a sidekick following you around, others want to travel alone. Some want motion controls, others want traditional controls. Some want voice acting, others don't. Some want Zelda as difficult as possible, others don't want another Adventure of Link or the original NES Zelda. Some want new steeds and/or vehicle's to ride on, others just want to go by foot on land. Some want more sidequests, others want more dungeons etc etc etc.

All in all. The series has done so many different things and gone for so many different paths that it also created fans of different elements and games. Whatever Nintendo will do next, some people will be bound to hate it and others will be in full support. I'd say they should just try and do whatever they can, add in as many elements the fans enjoy and try to find the right balance in the more controversial things. Example for the art style they should try out something that isn't too bright but neither too realistic. I'd personally say that the anime-like art style of Ocarina of Time 3D did this right and I'm saying this as someone who isn't a fanboy of that game since the N64 game. The remake was bright in most areas and only became darker when it needed to be. It was neither Wind Waker's cartoonyness or Twilight Princess's darkness and many fans had little to complain about it (That is assuming of course they didn't just like it because it was "Ocarina of Time"). And as for Sidequests and Dungeon's. I can see them being able to balance these out just fine. I think Skyward Sword did a pretty nice job on that really. =/

Release it at an early enough time of the console's lifespan (without affecting the game in anyway by removing too many things due to time constraints), advertise it well and just make sure the game is as well polished as possible.

Of course that's easier said than done. Especially since this fandom seems to be getting more critical and harder to please with the games every generation. But personally so far I don't think the games are getting that worse since their average quality to me are about the same as some of the earlier more praised games in the series. I'ts the expectations that are getting higher. I wish the developers luck on the next 3DS and Wii U Zelda's. Especially the Wii U game since that's the one people are really having their eyes on with very high expectations and I'm saying that as someone who has nothing against the Handheld Zelda's. =)

Just my two cent's really. =/

Originally Posted by Ningan the Lone Ninja

Of course it is, I was just talking about the majority of the fan base. I loved WW & PH when they first came out, and still love them today.

Even then, "the majority of the fanbase" have more complex and numerous reasons for disliking said games. And they're consistent for the most part.

I know this is off-topic, but why do you hate SS? (And please, for the love of God, don't say Fi.)

If you want to know, you'll have to ask me elsewhere because I'm not going to post it here.

Bear with me since this discussion has been dead for a while (but not long enough to consider this an illegitimate grave-digging job), so I might repeat something. But I think this is worth reviving . . .

All in all. The series has done so many different things and gone for so many different paths that it also created fans of different elements and games. Whatever Nintendo will do next, some people will be bound to hate it and others will be in full support.

This is one of the core things I was getting at. Zelda is a very diverse, eclectic series that continually adds new features and ideas (incidentally, many even see the diversity of the game-play as a flaw and would prefer the developers focus more on fewer things).

Consider all the dimensions that divide Zelda fans:

-Art-style
-The role of story (some want a greater role, others want less)
-Difficulty level
-Motion controls
-Game-play direction (To simplify "puzzles" vs. "combat")

In some cases, Nintendo could plausibly accommodate all factions, but it could certainly be tricky. Because they are a highly business oriented company, Nintendo always tries the "big-tent" approach where they try to please everyone--at least enough so they buy the game! Unfortunately, for us more "devoted" Zelda enthusiasts, this means we'll probably never get the super-hardcore, challenging and "mature" Zelda game we covet. It is generally not Nintendo's policy to cater to the very hardcore if it means alienating other potential consumers.

Because graphics are the first thing we notice about a game, I believe if Nintendo was truly interested in developing a Zelda that unites most Zelda fans, they'd be best off with a moderate art-style. I think they attempted this with Skyward Sword, but I think they need to go just a little "darker" (without losing too much color or vibrancy). Ocarina of Time 3DS is probably about right.

Next, they should consider the Metroid Prime approach to story. The basic premise is that the story can be fleshed out in ways that don't interrupt the player. This means a minimalist main story, but a rich world filled with extra content for the player to explore if they so choose. Cut-scenes should obviously not be mandatory.

With respect to difficulty level, Skyward Sword finally offered Hero Mode. This was a step in the right direction. However, I think changes in future "Hero Modes" should be qualitative as well as quantitative. This means that not only will recovery items be rarer and enemies deal more damage, but enemy locations will change, puzzles will be slightly different, the AI will be smarter etc.

But in the end, it might still be fruitless. Gamers are a very jaded, cynical bunch. We're very hard to please. I enjoy criticism, analysis and debate. Engaging in these activities can greatly extend the life of any game. So I'm not really blaming anyone--I've contributed to that environment as much as anyone. However, I do think that the environment has become one where Nintendo faces an impossible task. If they created a "perfect" Zelda game, would the community even be able to recognize it?

^I know Double A will take issue with that last sentence

Zelda's problem is that it caters TOO MUCH to what fans of the series want. It isn't providing what most gamer's want; it's only catering to what a handful of retro Zelda fans do, and thus it's alienating everyone who has ever picked up a controller since the year 2000.

Games have changed over the years, and what gamers expect from a game has thus changed too. The reason Zelda is no longer mainstream is because it is no longer providing the standard that gamers of today expect in their games. Wondering why Zelda isn't mainstream anymore is like asking "Why aren't more people into black and white silent films?". Zelda hasn't really changed since OOT. Nintendo made OOT, and has just been resting on it's laurels ever since; only making minor changes with each game. It's still incredibly linear, it still provides barely any content outside the main game, it's still a mostly barebones story; heck, it still doesn't even have something as basic as voice acting.

What zelda is providing would satisfy the gamers of fifteen years ago, but videogames have grown as a medium and Zelda hasn't grown with it. While other developers are trying new and interesting things, Nintendo is standing there with it's fingers in it's ears pretending that it's still 1998. Zelda games are sold on fanboy nostalgia and it's own reputation alone. Nintendo is basically saying "You should buy this Zelda game because it says Zelda on it, and we're really famous, and we made that one OOT game that always wins best game of all time awards, donchaknow?". They aren't doing anything different, they aren't pushing the envelope, they aren't doing anything that no other game isn't doing. If I wasn't already a Zelda fan, I probably would see absolutely nothing in the Zelda series that would convince me to play it. Think about it; if Skyward Sword had been an original title rather than a Zelda game, would it have even stood out?

Conversely, lets take a look at Skyrim for instance. It, like Zelda is an epic fantasy game revolving around adventuring, exploration, dungeons, and the like. It's very similar to zelda in many ways, and is probably the most Zelda like game to come out recently. But Skyrim sold more than 5 times the amount. Why? Because Skyrim is a modern game that appeals to what gamers of today want. It allows players to tackle objectives however they choose, in whatever order they wish. It allows customization of virtually every aspect of the experience. It features interesting characters and stories. It provides enough variety that one can replay the game many times and come up with a completely different experience each time. Skyward Sword on the other hand does none of these things.

Nintendo can easily bring Zelda back to the mainstream; all it has to do is recognize that the times have changed and change with them.

And of course, I'm sure that there is a way that we can bring the Zelda series up to speed and still give the fans of the older games what they want.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with Skyward Sword. It was the best Zelda game since WW.

Originally Posted by Ikana-Soldier64

I didn't think there was anything wrong with Skyward Sword. It was the best Zelda game since WW.

Ok, differences in opinions on Skyward Sword's quality aside, I think this post showcases exactly the attitude I was just talking about.

"It was the best Zelda"

Whenever we are on the Zelda forum, we have endless debates over how this Zelda compared to that one and such. Tell me, how many posts have you guys seen on here where we compare Zelda games to OTHER GAMES? Can somebody find me a post in the Skyward Sword forum where somebody talks about how Skyward Sword measured up to Arkham City, or Mass Effect 3, or Portal 2, or Uncharted 3, or L.A. Noire, or Skyrim, or any of the other absolutely amazing games that came out that same year?

If, instead of only comparing it to other Zeldas, you take an objective step back and compare it to everything else out there, you will find that Skyward Sword, and the Zelda series post N64 in general, is ridiculously behind the standards in content and player experience that every other game is setting. We here on the Zelda boards never seem to step back and compare zelda to the rest of the industry, and then we ask questions like "Why isn't Zelda mainstream anymore?".

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

Zelda's problem is that it caters TOO MUCH to what fans of the series want. It isn't providing what most gamer's want; it's only catering to what a handful of retro Zelda fans do, and thus it's alienating everyone who has ever picked up a controller since the year 2000.

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I'd argue that you've partially got it backwards. While there are undeniably aspects of the series that have become stagnant (e.g. the mythology), I believe the more striking problem is that the series has strayed too far from its roots in other places.

Somewhere buried in your post, you cite Skyrim as an example of a game that appeals to more gamers than modern Zelda. It's also worth noting that Skyrim's "epic [open-ended] adventure" bears far more resemblance to older Zelda games than to new Zelda games. Adventure gamers have always wanted epic open-ended adventures, and it's clear that Zelda once gave them that and isn't giving them that anymore.

Originally Posted by Double A

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I'd argue that you've partially got it backwards. While there are undeniably aspects of the series that have become stagnant (e.g. the mythology), I believe the more striking problem is that the series has strayed too far from its roots in other places.

So I guess in this case modern games just happen to be trending toward whatever you are calling Zelda's roots? By which I assume you mean sandbox structure?

Somewhere buried in your post, you cite Skyrim as an example of a game that appeals to more gamers than modern Zelda. It's also worth noting that Skyrim's "epic [open-ended] adventure" bears far more resemblance to older Zelda games than to new Zelda games. Adventure gamers have always wanted epic open-ended adventures, and it's clear that Zelda once gave them that and isn't giving them that anymore.

Actually, yeah, now that I think about it, Skyrim plays sort of (key word being sort of) like a modernized version of the first Zelda. In both games, you are basically dropped in the middle of a world and then allowed to go wherever you want. Your only real limitation on where you go is running into monsters that you aren't strong enough to kill yet.

Of course, Skyrim has dozens of hours of side content in addition to the main quest, and Skyrim is a RPG rather than an action adventure game (though AOL pretty much was an RPG), but otherwise, yeah, it's a good comparison.
This is what Zelda should be striving to be.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

Ok, differences in opinions on Skyward Sword's quality aside, I think this post showcases exactly the attitude I was just talking about.

"It was the best Zelda"

Whenever we are on the Zelda forum, we have endless debates over how this Zelda compared to that one and such. Tell me, how many posts have you guys seen on here where we compare Zelda games to OTHER GAMES? Can somebody find me a post in the Skyward Sword forum where somebody talks about how Skyward Sword measured up to Arkham City, or Mass Effect 3, or Portal 2, or Uncharted 3, or L.A. Noire, or Skyrim, or any of the other absolutely amazing games that came out that same year?

If, instead of only comparing it to other Zeldas, you take an objective step back and compare it to everything else out there, you will find that Skyward Sword, and the Zelda series post N64 in general, is ridiculously behind the standards in content and player experience that every other game is setting. We here on the Zelda boards never seem to step back and compare zelda to the rest of the industry, and then we ask questions like "Why isn't Zelda mainstream anymore?".

Well, we here on the Zelda board are primarily Zelda fans. I'm not a gamer. I entertain a couple of classic videogame franchises. I couldn't give less ♥♥♥♥s about derivative modern warfare games and the like that you will find these days. So there is no basis of comparison.

However, if you compare everything to the golden standard of OOT, it becomes much easier to make sense of where the game stands in the series.

Originally Posted by Ikana-Soldier64

Well, we here on the Zelda board are primarily Zelda fans. I'm not a gamer. I entertain a couple of classic videogame franchises. I couldn't give less ♥♥♥♥s about derivative modern warfare games and the like that you will find these days. So there is no basis of comparison.

However, if you compare everything to the golden standard of OOT, it becomes much easier to make sense of where the game stands in the series.

Sorry, I was just using your post as an example to illustrate a point. I did not mean it as a personal judgement or insult toward you.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

So I guess in this case modern games just happen to be trending toward whatever you are calling Zelda's roots? By which I assume you mean sandbox structure?

To a degree, though "sandbox" does not inherently mean "captures the essence of retro Zelda". Skyrim (though I haven't played it) might be the best example because it appears to capture two of what I think are the three main pillars of retro Zelda: mythology and open-endedness.

Originally Posted by Double A

To a degree, though "sandbox" does not inherently mean "captures the essence of retro Zelda". Skyrim (though I haven't played it) might be the best example because it appears to capture two of what I think are the three main pillars of retro Zelda: mythology and open-endedness.

The third being?

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

The third being?

Straightforward, fast-paced, tactile gameplay. Skyrim appears to have the mythology and open-endedness down, but what I've seen of the gameplay (especially the combat) appears to lack a certain "impact" from my point of view.

Originally Posted by Double A

Straightforward, fast-paced, tactile gameplay. Skyrim appears to have the mythology and open-endedness down, but what I've seen of the combat appears to lack "impact" from my point of view.

Yeah, you do have a point there; slower paced gameplay kinda comes with the territory of it being an RPG. Not to mention that I've alway felt that first person sword fighting is a stupid gameplay choice that makes it even less impressive than it already is.

Anyway, I think we're pretty much in agreement here on what Zelda should be. I think that's a first.

Which is weird because I want the same thing from Zelda that I've wanted for the last couple years - I've just learnt to convey it more clearly.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

slower paced gameplay kinda comes with the territory of it being an RPG

Incidentally, a certain RPG with fast-paced gameplay has combat that I wish Zelda would make steps towards in terms of pace, simplicity and fluidity:

I feel this is not possible. I don't really feel a universally praised zelda game can be released. The problem isn't in the quality of the game, however. Someone could make the best shooter game ever, but if you don't like shooter games, you aren't going to fully appreciate it.

Different zelda fans love different aspects of the series more than others. Some people may want it to lean in one direction, some people may want it to lean in another, and some might want it to strike a fairly even balance. However, if the game caters towards one of these opinions it alienates the other 2, and it isn't very practical to have your game cater to more than one side in most debates about white, black, or grey balances.