My thoughts on the downfall of the Zelda franchise

Why did he create this topic? He only posted once, and hasn't posted again.

Originally Posted by DarkVaati

I was with you until you put down MM, which, to me, was the best Zelda. OoT is no way the best Zelda to me. It was a carbon copy of aLttP and completely unoriginal. Now, if you want to play a Zelda game exactly like OoT... go play OoT!

The rest of us look forward to new and exciting Zeldas.

Yes, MM was the best Zelda in terms of almost everything. Except, there are some moments in OoT that will forever stay in my heart. The opening sequence, Link pulling the MS for the first time, the ending... etc. MM was more refined, less light-hearted, darker and perfect. Ocarina of Time was great but seemingly barren. MM is quite hard for me to get into though... anymore... perhaps because of my wrecked up N64 controller's control stick =(

Actually I just can't get over how perfect those two games were. Usually, idiot game critics always bring up OoT and say how great it was, but forget to mention MM. Funnily enough, IGN gave OoT 100/100 and MM 99/100. Maybe MM wasn't as well remembered because of its strange gameplay, lived off OoT's greatness and because it wasn't as "influential"?

I found that argument it be a complete failure. MM, TWW and OoX were all amazing games, I enjoyed the latter 2 and have just started playing the first and I love it already, it's so beautifully sombre and dark.

Another person to have a pop at cel-shading. I'm sorry but it's people like you who really rile me. A game is NOT a ****ty kids game just because it's graphics give you that impression. I found TWW to be an amazingly fun game, much more things to do on it and the boat feature was really fun, exploring the sea and stuff.

And OoT being the peak is completely subjective. I know that many people don't have it as their favorite Zelda game and that's because just because of it's commercial success doesn't mean it was the best.

Originally Posted by heroman

Why did he create this topic? He only posted once, and hasn't posted again.

Have you heard of the term troll, I think it qualifies here. Why hasn't anyone locked this yet? He hasn't shown up since so it's a one sided argument.

Originally Posted by Ritogirl

Have you heard of the term troll, I think it qualifies here. Why hasn't anyone locked this yet? He hasn't shown up since so it's a one sided argument.

Yeah. It seems like he only joined just to make this topic.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

Majora's Mask was a disappointment.

Your opinion has lost all meaning.

In someways, i have to agree with t3stm4ster and in many others i don't. The ways that i agree with him are the fact that the first 5 Zelda titles were gems, with A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time topping the list. Ocarina of Time took Zelda into the 3D era bringing a new light onto how to look on the series while keeping true to the original format. A Link to the Past was emotional in places, and is a true gem to the Zelda franchise.

And now for the many ways that i don't agree with. Majoras Mask was not a disappointment, in fact it was a great game. It took the Ocarina mold, and improved upon it with transformation masks, larger dungeons (not as many as Ocarina, but still). Wind Waker was a great game, ok it was easier than the other titles behind it, but it was still a good game with great moments. The graphics were cel-shaded and it suited the title to a tee. Realistic graphics would not have suited this game i don't think.

I could carry on, but Orici has summed it all up in his post.

I suppose this can sum it all up as well

Um... there's mord than 5 zeldas... what are the ones u talk about?

Have to agree to disagree, with the OP. The first Zelda became a classic, but in and of itself, wasn't anything really special, story-wise. Gameplay, sure, but the story was really basic. Okay, most NES games weren't complex, but it really wasn't all that deep. Zelda II was loathed by a lot of traditionalists when it came out, and even now has its critics. Definitely an incredibly difficult game, but the side-scroll thing is STILL a sore spot.

ALttP, to me, showed what the original would have been, given more hardware capability. I always had the feeling that the creators might've thought the same. Ocarina of course had the big breakthrough with the huge storyline, monstrous dungeons, and a Hyrule that had some actual depth.

I really can't speak for the handheld versions, I've not really played them. WindWaker was odd for sure; I'm not a huge fan of the cel-shade technique, I think it's clever and different, but it tore away from Zelda so much that it felt a bit like SMB2 compared to SMB. However, speaking with people who actually played it, including my brother and best friend, both accomplished gamers, it did wonders for Link and a lot of previous gripes regarding Zelda gameplay.

Along comes Twilight Princess. Yes, TP carries out the OoT themes, but I don't understand all the hostility toward it. I'm nearly 32, and as a greying old dude, of course it's fun to be nostalgic. But to view the originals as these untouchable pinnacles of creativity, is a bit absurd if you take a step back and use a little objectivity. The Zelda games have done nothing but improve, if you ask me.



There's some talk in here about Link's age, as well. I think it's obviously more feasible to have him be 17, but the concept of the child hero isn't really a new one. It's a coming-of-age tale, and to tell it without seeing him early on, is to ignore entirely too much of the mythos. Link is "King Arthur Lite," in a lot of ways, and you can't just jump into Arthurian legend without the backstory of him as a boy. Same thing, here, with our beloved Link.

Heres my view to the maker of this thread
1. If you think Zelda is such a dissapointment these days, why are you on the forums?
2. Tell your views to people who actually agree with your views, meaning, none of us lot, who love and enjoy playing Zelda.

.

Here are my thoughts on the downfall of zelda.

There is no downfall of Zelda!!!!!!!

With only 3 exceptions (FSA, AOL, and PH) every Zelda has either been equal or better than the zelda before it.

Originally Posted by ShiekahSage

Here are my thoughts on the downfall of zelda.

There is no downfall of Zelda!!!!!!!

With only 3 exceptions (FSA, AOL, and PH) every Zelda has either been equal or better than the zelda before it.

Well, the FSA, AoL, and PH thing is your opinion, not the opinion of everyone, so...
But other than that you're right. Zelda hasn't had a "downfall", and most likely wont any time soon.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

Without a doubt, Zelda 1-4 are classics: set-in-stone wonders that can never be defaced or undervalued. Zelda 5 was obviously the peak of Zelda. Phenomenal storyline coupled with amazing graphics: alas, that will never happen again.

Majora's Mask was a disappointment. Another attempt by Nintendo to expand Zelda's storyline by creating another land with a messed up villain. This was obviously a hastily-released game whose only goal was to absorb and bask in the glory of Ocarina of Time, which it failed to do. The ONLY good thing this game had going for it was the spectacular dungeon design: the only quality to surpass Ocarina of Time. But the end of the game comes up much too fast, after only four dungeons, the climax happens. Disappointing.

This is where I disagree the most. If anything, this is one of the best games in the series. Why? Because it's different. Every mainstream Zelda game has the same repetitive story where Zelda has been abducted somehow and Ganon must be defeated, and every single time he's an utter disappointment for a final boss, never once being difficult.

Majora's Mask was far from a continuation of OOT; rather, it was a departure from it. The game has an unsurpassed level of depth in it. The NPCs had lives for instance. They all had lives and places to be, which fit perfectly with the time system, and the stories that came with them were greatly absorbing, especially the Anju and Kafei story. There was so much feeling in the game, and it was incredibly involving. The game wasn't about the Skull Kid and the Mask so much as it was about the people he was affecting. I loved every second of MM, and I find it to be the highlight of the series.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

The two GBA Zeldas (Seasons and Ages) were a complete flop. Rushed and ill-marketed, these two games were without a doubt an attempt to establish a well-known and popular game franchise on a newly-introduced system, thereby having Zelda being a large factor in the success (or lack of) of Gameboy Advance. But it's nothing but a money drain, and these two games bombed.

Again, I disagree, this time in terms of gameplay. The story was rushed, and shoddily put together, but the games themselves were great fun. The dungeons were challenging, the old LOZ bosses were nicely done, and the original ones were innovative, and the Ring system actually allowed you to handicap yourself and make the game harder with the Power, Armour and Curse Rings. The final bosses were great too, and Ganon was the best he's ever been (Fight him with a Wooden Sword and a Curse Ring for the most challengeing Ganon battle in the entire series). The story left much to be desired - you can thank Capcom's shameless neglect of continuity for that - but the gameplay is far better than the recent mainstream titles.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

So comes along gamecube, and with a series of Zelda failures behind it, you can hardly expect the ground-breaking success that Ocarina of Time enjoyed. To further my point, Nintendo made the worst mistake by showing everyone a sneak peak of upcoming gamecube games at Spaceworld long ago. Included in this was the famous 10-second-long duel between Link and Ganondorf. So we are obviously shown the capabilities of gamecube, and therefore this short clip has increased the hype of the next Zelda game immensely.

Nintendo disappoints yet again, with Zelda's shocking new look. I can't imagine why they decided to make Link look like this: a cartoony little 8-year old. Ok, so they say they're "using cel-shading to create this look, etc." I have no problem with this, except that they're doing this with a Zelda game. This is not the kind of advance in technology that a Zelda game should show for itself.
I personally am so ashamed of this Zelda game that I refuse to acknowledge it as one of the series, along with Seasons, Ages, and to an extent Majora's Mask.

Wind Waker disappointed phenomenally, gameplay-wise. It was long, drawn out, and tediously simple.

Everything else, however, was pure magic. It had one of the best stories of all the games in the mainstream continuity, tying in nicely with the vaccuum of an ending left behind by OOT. The visuals were bright, vibrant and endearing, and at long last gave Link some expressions and emotions.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

Why does Nintendo feel it better to constantly make Link a little child? A full-length game with a 17-year-old Link with the Spaceworld's demo graphics would be so unbelievable it would certainly break Ocarina of Time's precedence.

Let me fill you in on something: Link has been an adult a grand total of three times in this order - AOL, OOT, TP. In the first game, he was a boy of about 12, and in every other game, he is about the same age or one or two years older. That's the concept of Link - a youth of humble origins whose courage allows him to overcome great evil. The only exception to this is TP, in which we meet Link as an adult. AOL's Link is simply LOZ's Link aged 16, several years older than when we first met him, and OOT's Link becomes an adult within the game. Your complaint here isn't really that valid, because Nintendo are sticking to Miyamoto's original idea.

Graphics are important to a game, but they do not make the game. Giving a Zelda game the same graphics as the Spaceworld demo would in no way make a good Zelda game - the gameplay is what needs to be corrected, not the graphics. To hell with the graphics, I want a Hard Mode.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

I consider storyline to be more important than graphics and/or gameplay, but I believe the game should at least appeal visually to fans, and if it doesn't do that, then good gameplay is all for naught if they decide not to buy it on account of its unattractive-ness.

If you truly believe that the story takes precedence over the gameplay, then your entire argument just fell apart. You have no idea what makes a game good. The story and the graphics are not what is hindering the series the most - the graphics have advanced tremendously and the story isn't the issue - it is the neglected gameplay. Most people play games for the gameplay, hence the name. A game is supposed to be fun, and frankly, Zelda has been a little too easy lately to be considered as such.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

People always say that graphics don't matter, it's the story and gameplay, but deep down, people are affected by their visual first impressions and will base at least part of their opinion on that first impression, consciously or otherwise.

Graphics do matter, but they don't make the game - gameplay does. If you're a fan of the series, chances are you'll play the game regardless of how it looks, and if it plays well, you'll come to ignore the visual apect. I'd rather play a good game with average graphics than a bad game with photo-realistic graphics.

Notice how the thread starter has made one, and only one, single contribution to not only this thread, but the entire forum. Pay him no further heed until he decides to try and defend his point again.

Also, note this guy didn't talk about TP, FS, or PH. He hasn't probably played them. What if he likes them?

But there is no downfall. Only bad games were the CD-i ones, which weren't even true Zelda games. Why don't you come back and post again? Or are you to scared?

Yep, that's how I see it. He's either a coward or a troll. Either way there is no reason to keep this thread open as he will not defend his argument. Should I PM a mod to get this thread locked?

Originally Posted by Ritogirl

Yep, that's how I see it. He's either a coward or a troll. Eithewr way there is no reason to keep this thread open as he will not defend his argument. Should I PM a mod to get this thread locked?

Do this. Hey, I think he should be banned.

Also, learn your facts. OoA and OoS were for Game Boy Color.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

Without a doubt, Zelda 1-4 are classics: set-in-stone wonders that can never be defaced or undervalued. Zelda 5 was obviously the peak of Zelda. Phenomenal storyline coupled with amazing graphics.

This is true.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

Majora's Mask was a disappointment. Another attempt by Nintendo to expand Zelda's storyline by creating another land with a messed up villain.

How was Majora's Mask in any way an attempt to expand the story? It took place in another world and didn't feature the Triforce or Ganon at all, and barely even mention of Princess Zelda. It was a side-story, if anything.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

This was obviously a hastily-released game

I don't see how anything in Majora's Mask's design feels "hastily released".

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

whose only goal was to absorb and bask in the glory of Ocarina of Time, which it failed to do.

I don't get this statement. It's a sequel to Ocarina of Time. When a game does well, it gets a sequel. I guess you could call this basking in glory?

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

The ONLY good thing this game had going for it was the spectacular dungeon design: the only quality to surpass Ocarina of Time.

IMHO, dungeon design is a big part of any Zelda game. You can't say a game is totally disappointing and then say it's dungeons were better than Ocarina of Time.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

But the end of the game comes up much too fast, after only four dungeons, the climax happens. Disappointing.

I agree with this somewhat. But I feel the rich side quests filled in the gap left by not having as many dungeons. There was a lot to do if you cared to look.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

The two GBA Zeldas (Seasons and Ages) were a complete flop. Rushed and ill-marketed, these two games were without a doubt an attempt to establish a well-known and popular game franchise on a newly-introduced system, thereby having Zelda being a large factor in the success (or lack of) of Gameboy Advance.

What? First of all, they were for Game Boy Colour and came out about a month before the Game Boy Advance system.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

But it's nothing but a money drain, and these two games bombed.

They sold nearly four million copies. Each.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

So comes along gamecube, and with a series of Zelda failures behind it,

Majora's Mask had some mixed opinions but reviews were generally positive, and opinions of the Oracle games are pretty much universally positive. I don't think that counts as a series of failures.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

you can hardly expect the ground-breaking success that Ocarina of Time enjoyed.

Ocarina of Time is commonly referred to as the best game of all time. That's hard to top.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

To further my point, Nintendo made the worst mistake by showing everyone a sneak peak of upcoming gamecube games at Spaceworld long ago. Included in this was the famous 10-second-long duel between Link and Ganondorf. So we are obviously shown the capabilities of gamecube, and therefore this short clip has increased the hype of the next Zelda game immensely.

People forget. That was a demonstration for the GameCube itself. Not a future game. But it did indeed stir up some false hype.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

Nintendo disappoints yet again, with Zelda's shocking new look. I can't imagine why they decided to make Link look like this: a cartoony little 8-year old. Ok, so they say they're "using cel-shading to create this look, etc." I have no problem with this, except that they're doing this with a Zelda game. This is not the kind of advance in technology that a Zelda game should show for itself.

As far as people who don't like the toon style go, there are people who can get around it (and from them, opinions are generally positive) and those who get hung up on graphics.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

I personally am so ashamed of this Zelda game that I refuse to acknowledge it as one of the series, along with Seasons, Ages, and to an extent Majora's Mask.

It sounds like you're one of those who can't get past the graphics, then.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

along with Seasons, Ages, and to an extent Majora's Mask.

And I still fail to see why you dislike these three titles so much.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

Why does Nintendo feel it better to constantly make Link a little child?

The same reason they constantly make Mario a plumber. He's been other things, but that doesn't change what he is generally depicted as.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

A full-length game with a 17-year-old Link with the Spaceworld's demo graphics would be so unbelievable it would certainly break Ocarina of Time's precedence.

The phrase "Twilight Princess" springs to mind for some odd reason.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

Miyamoto's and Nintendo's ideas for Zelda since Majora's Mask have caused me to stop liking the series altogether, and only the classics can bring me back.

So, are you suggesting that every Zelda game feature Link going through 8 dungeons, face Ganon, and rescue Princess Zelda?

I really don't see what you're expectations of the series are.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

I consider storyline to be more important than graphics and/or gameplay,

Nintendo seems to disagree, putting gameplay first.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

but I believe the game should at least appeal visually to fans, and if it doesn't do that, then good gameplay is all for naught if they decide not to buy it on account of its unattractive-ness.

This is the sad story of people who decide they don't like The Wind Waker's graphical style, and pass up a great game because of it.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

People always say that graphics don't matter, it's the story and gameplay, but deep down, people are affected by their visual first impressions and will base at least part of their opinion on that first impression, consciously or otherwise.

This may be true, but it seems like if gameplay is good enough, even people who don't like the graphics and love the game. This seemed to be the case for The Wind Waker.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

I welcome replies and I really would like to know seriously why Nintendo decided to take this terrible new direction for Zelda. I appreciate your time.

Well, it seems to be working out for them so far.

And I really don't think they've departed from what always made Zelda great: solid gameplay.

This argument is as one sided now as it was when I stopped viewing it. As Ritogirl has said, it should be locked.