Zelda not as good as other adventure games?

I have gotten into discussions at school concerning gaming, and I tend to bring up Zelda... many people claim that Zelda is a child's game and it is a little kid playing with a sword. Others say that it isn't really fun. Some say that Zelda's graphics suck... and learned it was this game that they were talking about..


Along with that, many bash Zelda because it isn't fun.

What are your thoughts about this? Why do you think that Zelda might be disliked?

Not many people care for old NES games these days. Even I don't really, cause, I mean, if you didn't grow up with an NES, it's hard for you to experience these games as you would when the game first released. I can imagine its just not as... magical. Finding all the secrets yourself, unlike today with the internet and all,where everybody just looks it up. I have to admit, I rather dislike the original Zelda myself. I never really liked the NES Zelda games, most likely due to me playing the 3d Zelda games before the NES games.

I am taking about the series in general.

Make sure that whoever you're arguing with has played TP, then try again. I personally think that skyrim and TP are on roughly equal levels.

And anyone who calls TP a kid's game needs to be slapped around the face with the T rating and epic story until they learn some manners.

As or fun... Fun is a matter of personal opinion. I personally cannot stand FIFA, for example.

Could you perhaps provide an example of what "other adventure games" are?

There are, of course, many comparisons between games like Zelda and Skyrim, and if that's the type of comparison you're asking for, then that's simply not a fair evaluation. Those two games have very different goals in terms of their story and gameplay--Zelda being about a linear epic tale of rescuing a princess accessible to gamers of all ages, and Skyrim being an open-ended and massive journey across the game world geared towards mature gamers who want to min/max their character and take advantage of RPG elements.

So you see, if you don't respect what each game is attempting to accomplish with its story and gameplay, it's hard to tell which is "better".

I have dealt with similar things as well..."Zelda sucks. It's just about some guy called Zelda who has a sword and tries to save some little girl." It leaves me furious! Outraged! SICK WITH ANGER!

I do miss the days of gaming where people didn't throw around the "these graphics suck!" rubbish. It's very, very shallow and ignorant to base how good a game is on it's graphics.

I think that many people dislike the Zelda games because they simply don't give it a chance.

I remember back in the early days when the N64 was still relatively new. I saw some early pictures of Ocarina of Time in a Nintendo magazine and I thought it looked really dumb and stupid. I had just gotten into Nintendo and that was my first time ever seeing a Zelda game.

When Ocarina of Time finally was released, I decided to give it a chance and I took back all the negative things I had said about the game.

Many people simply don't give it a chance. I think that the Zelda games might be hard to be amazed by simply by seeing some pictures or watching some video footage. It's when you actually start playing the game that the magic happens.

I have played all the Zelda games up to date, save a few hand-held ones, and I can pop off a lot of reasons why people wouldn't like Zelda.

Repetitive plots, unrealistic characters, lack of character development, lack of plot development, bad graphics, lack of voice acting, graphics are sub-par now, and I could go on for a while longer, but I wont.

If you want a true mid-evil adventure game, play Dark Souls, if you want free choice, play Skyrim, if you want a good mid-evil RPG, play Dragon Age: Origins. Zelda tries to hard to take all those things and make a game to appeal to all, but ends up spreading it's resources to thin, therefore making a lacking game. The gameplay is the only thing that Zelda is best at, but in my style of gaming, that doesn't mater as much as characters, realism or plot.

I am trying to be as un-biased as possible.

zelda in my opinion is the god of all adventure games...

like honestly every game is packed with adventure theres so many things to do!! and the story is just amazing!

Screw what kids think, zelda is the best, and who cares about graphiccs?? its all about the gameplay!!

Whenever I get into discussions about zelda with my friends - they always bring up how it Halo or CallOfDuty are way better games because of all the killing and having the use of guns. In my opinion comparing Halo and COD to Zelda is like comparing two different things with different types of gamers. People nowadays love to go on xbox live and try to get their rank up to prestige or whatever but with zelda you can't do anything of that. Again, Two different types of games - it really depends on the person.

Well you can't get everyone to like the same thing you know. Everybody likes different things.
As Zelda fans, we should know this better than anyone else!

Since some of us do tend to avoid certain games in this very series itself for a variety of reasons eg. Art Style not being realistic or cell shaded, wether its 2d or 3d, wether you have a vehicle or animal as mode of transport, whether its medieval or steampunk etc.

Its just a preference thing. Wether people actually tried any of the games in this series is a whole different story. In the end all I can say is. Its their loss. =/

I for one, though I enjoy the Zelda games dearly, I wouldn't die for them and act like I'm some sort of "true fan". Which is probably why I don't passionately hate the newer entries in the series and act all doom and gloom for the series supposedly going downhill because their not like the good old days. I'm a fan of a variety of game series and so long as the action, exploration and dungeons are solid fun. I couldn't care less what the producers do with the art style, story, vehicle or in what time period the games take place. But thats just me and I think I'm not really answering your question so sorry about that. Just invite these guys to try out one of the games or just let them be.

I believe that the magic of Zelda does not involve photo-realistic graphics (TP is an exception, though its graphics do not make the game magical, but other factors do, which will be mentioned later), blood and gore, mindless grinding, kill counts, or being on multiple platforms.

The magic of Zelda involves going on an adventure with a solid storyline with a cast of memorable characters and solving a myriad of difficult puzzles.

It is sad that many gamers did not grow up during the NES or even the SNES era and appreciate the games of yore. It just depends on when the person grew up.

The main difference between an action-adventure game and a Western RPG is that an action-adventure game de-emphasizes statistics and grinding in favour of a coherent storyline with some open-endedness while playing a memorable character (with a default name) and puzzles, while a Western RPG emphasizes statistics and grinding in lieu of puzzles and sacrifice a coherent storyline in favour of open-endedness (and playing as a generic character). In fact, an action-adventure game is closer to that of an Eastern RPG (which usually has a set of memorable playable characters and a strong emphasis on a coherent storyline) than an action-adventure game is to a Western RPG.

Thus, the magic of Zelda is the story and the gameplay.

I disagree with the view presented by some of your classmates. The Legend of Zelda franchise may not be superior to every Action-Adventure franchise in every way, however, it still is a genre as well as industry leader.

Something that distinguishes Zelda from other games in the Action-Adventure genre is its excellent intertwining of dungeon and sidequest. I'd argue that the franchise hit its peak with this during the N64 era. Few franchises contain characters as dynamic as Zelda does. Another interesting element of the series that sets it apart is the intriguing and highly successful inclusion of various musical elements.

Something that the franchise can do to improve is return to its nonlinear roots. Linearity was an especial problem with the overworld in Skyward Sword which is a shame because it truly was filled with more traps and puzzles than previous ones. It'd be interesting to returning to the precedent established by such titles as the NES original as well as A Link to the Pat where dungeons can be completed out of order. Zelda also shouldn't be afraid to exapnd in new and intriguing ways. The introduction of primitive guns as well as a new possible non earthly setting certainly wouldn't hurt.

Anyone who is a serious gamer should be aware of the critical reception of OoT.

Nintendo is the Disney of video games; their games are very kid-friendly. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are for kids, however. Nintendo seems to focus more on fun, lighthearted games whereas most of the rest of the industry tries to deal with darker and more serious themes (in general).

With the Souls series (Demon's and Dark), Nintendo's got some serious competition. Dark Souls is the best action adventure game since Ocarina of Time in my opinion, and blows Zeldas like Twilight Princess out of the water. Zelda has kind of lost its edge. Open-world games like Skyrim and Oblivion do a better job at exploration, and the Souls series does a better job with combat and character progression. There's not really that much that makes Zelda stand out as exceptional anymore.

This debate is definitely not recent. Did any of you remember the Zelda-Dark Cloud rivalry of the early 2000s? Both games of the Dark Cloud series were touted by their fans that the two games can beat Zelda. I believe that in early 2003, when both Dark Cloud 2 (released in NA on February) and TWW (released in NA on March) came out, there was quite a debate over which game was better (both games used cel-shaded graphics).

I am a fan of both the Zelda and the Dark Cloud series.

Honestly, playing Skyward Sword made me feel that Nintendo are a bit stuck in the past. I'm not saying SS is a bad game by any means, it's ♥♥♥♥ing great. There are just some parts where it was really unacceptable for a triple A massive franchise to have. Collecting those notes? Going back to each individual dungeon? Silent Realms? Re-using old areas? Seriously, Nintendo? 2012?

Originally Posted by Pell

Seriously, Nintendo? 2012?

Correction: 2011

Well, Nintendo can do what they wanna do. And, if I remember correctly, they earned 5 stars from several critiques. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

Well, Nintendo can do what they wanna do.

My bad, 2011. Nintendo can do what they want but I can I disagree with it. But thanks for clearing that up for me, I didn't actually know that a company could do anything they wanted with their own franchise and project. Wow.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

And, if I remember correctly, they earned 5 stars from several critiques. Just saying.

So did Mass Effect 3. And Fez. And every annual iteration of COD gets top marks from critiques. Game journalism is widely regarded as a joke, you don't actually trust it, do you? I digress, SS is not a bad game by any means, but that Zelda formula is showing signs of ageing.

Originally Posted by Pell

My bad, 2011. Nintendo can do what they want but I can I disagree with it. But thanks for clearing that up for me, I didn't actually know that a company could do anything they wanted with their own franchise and project. Wow.

Yep. It is the 21st century. They can do that now

So did Mass Effect 3. And Fez. And every annual iteration of COD gets top marks from critiques. Game journalism is widely regarded as a joke, you don't actually trust it, do you? I digress, SS is not a bad game by any means, but that Zelda formula is showing signs of ageing.

IGN? I think that is definitely not a joke. IGN is, by far, the most reliable website for gaming. They rated it 5 stars.