My thoughts on the downfall of the Zelda franchise

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will never happen again? Unless you can predict the future, why should anyone believe that?

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. 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.

Disappointing?
MM had such beauty and depth to it, that I would never consider it a disappointment to it. The character interaction was amazing, and very fullfilling. The story was pretty epic. The introduction of a new land in 3D was also very well excecuted.
And the music...the music was brilliant.

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.

In your opinion.
They had much success, despite having "bombed" as you say

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.
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.

Hee hee, you make me laugh.
First off, Link's 10 or 12, not 8:XD.
The cell-shading brought out immense emotion from the game, which helped to connect the players' emotions to the game. It worked out very well.
And if you refuse to acknowledge it as a Zelda game...well you're just bordering on delusional.

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.

Why not a child?
I see no problem with it.

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.

Too bad for you. Others are enjoying it.

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.

You should switch to the XBox if you care so much for graphics.

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.

Judging by appearances is a mistake.

Well, to each of own, and you are entitled to your opinion. But here's mine. Though I was very VERY cautious about wind wakers new look, I still bought the game out of love for the series. And I was very impressed with a great story line, good characters, ect. True it may not be the best zelda game in the series, but still a great one to have in a collection. And in my opinion, MM was a great game. It used to make me mad that they reused characters, but really I just got over it. It has originality everywhere else. The only real problem I have with it is that it was to short. And you don't mention TP, which has come very close to breaking OoT precident. The graphics in it were very high quality. I agree that if a games graphics are just so bad, then it doesn't matter how good the storyline ect. is, but WW wasn't really bad graphics, just a new form of graphics. And TPs graphics greatly exceed on OoT, but both are still amazing games. All in all, I like most zelda games. OoS and OoA are pretty low on my list (I own them both though, got them for free) but the lowest is AoL, I think that one particular is greatly inferior to any other zelda game in the series.

You had me with the first paragraph, since I believe you there. However, I did enjoy MM and TWW very much. MM because of the NPC interactions, and TWW because it gave me an expansive overworld and a Link that showed emotion frequently.

The reason Nintendo continues showing Link as a child in several games is because that's what he's meant to be. A kid in his pre to early teens embarking on a huge lifechanging quest. Adult Link is not the true Link.

Games have declined over the years. They have. The only thing I can do is try to find the few pieces of recent games that are genuinely good, and use that to fuel my fandom.

Heh...Orici said pretty much everything I believe.

And keep in mind, WW cell-shade type graphics are actually favored over the 'realistic' graphics of TP in Japan.
I think if there's any problem with the series, it's that it's not fresh enough or difficult enough anymore.
Majora's Mask is an excellent game, as is Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess [though overhyped] is doing very well.
Meanwhile in the 2D world, the games are all quite fun and entertaining, but do lack the difficulty level to make them as cherished as the classics.

Cool post, I almost completely agree with you. I've been with the series before OoT too. I thought the Oracle games were as good as the original LoZ. But yea, it was missing something.........some mystery. I chalk it up as the limitations on the original NES games. We kinda had to figure our own way out in that one. No more roaming the land to find Dungeon 3. Now, you can't go anywhere else until the item from Dungeon 2 is obtained. etc

Even after playing WW 3 or so times; I'm still not that much a fan of it. Maybe it's the graphics, or the lackluster Triforce quest.

But FSA, and PH are on par for a 2D game. Don't pretend you didn't lose any sleep playing against friends.

And TP, ah, where to start. It's a turn in the right direction for the series. The simple bosses are my only complaint. I especially admire that the dungeons were actually creative. I mean TP's going to be the new standard for adventure games. Sure they were still 'elemental', but at least it was in a new way.

Originally Posted by t3stm4ster

silly words

Maybe the Zelda series just isn't for you. Maybe it's something you enjoyed and just grew out of.

I'll give you that OoT was probably the peak of the series (as the first 3D game for a lot of series has been...), but most of your other arguments are petty.

If you don't enjoy the series anymore, don't play it, it's not for everyone.

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.

Yet another of the "OoT is the best Zelda game of all time" people. Zelda 2 was not as good as TWW.

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.
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.

Why is TWW such a bad game? The characters actually show expression. they have a greater range of motion. So if you don't like the first glance of how a game looks it is a failure? Don't judge a book by its cover I say.

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.

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.

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.

Ok first, I'm a fan of all the zelda games. I happen to like the graphics in TWW and TP. You obviously based all of your opinion on the graphics in TWW.
Why don't you beat all of the games first before posting your opinions, ok?

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Heh...Orici said pretty much everything I believe.

And keep in mind, WW cell-shade type graphics are actually favored over the 'realistic' graphics of TP in Japan.
I think if there's any problem with the series, it's that it's not fresh enough or difficult enough anymore.
Majora's Mask is an excellent game, as is Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess [though overhyped] is doing very well.
Meanwhile in the 2D world, the games are all quite fun and entertaining, but do lack the difficulty level to make them as cherished as the classics.

I just wanted to mention, before giving a rather long winded reply later tonight, that WW actually tanked in Japan. So did TP. TWW did slightly better overall then TP, but neither game really strung a cord with Japan fans.

Oh, and TWW didn't really "tank" in the states:

C3 News :: Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker | Breaks Sales Records!

Yup, breaking preorder records across the board.

Just wanted to point out the common misconceptions by those though that don't live in Japan. The final sales figures are actually approaching being surpassed by TP, being TP is still being put as "new" on store shelfs while TWW is no longer available in that fashion. TWW itself was not a big hit in Japan as it was predicted to be, and actually sold best in the states, where it was critcized the most. However, most game sites and game magazines still scored it a 9.5 or above. Long winded reply to come later.

EDIT: To note, Zelda, outside of PH, has not sold well in Japan since the record breaking Ocarina of Time. None of the Zelda games have sold well over there, and if I had to guess most Japanese gamers don't care as much about Zelda anymore.

Originally Posted by Nathan

I just wanted to mention, before giving a rather long winded reply later tonight, that WW actually tanked in Japan. So did TP. TWW did slightly better overall then TP, but neither game really strung a cord with Japan fans.

Oh, and TWW didn't really "tank" in the states:

C3 News :: Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker | Breaks Sales Records!

Yup, breaking preorder records across the board.

Just wanted to point out the common misconceptions by those though that don't live in Japan. The final sales figures are actually approaching being surpassed by TP, being TP is still being put as "new" on store shelfs while TWW is no longer available in that fashion. TWW itself was not a big hit in Japan as it was predicted to be, and actually sold best in the states, where it was critcized the most. However, most game sites and game magazines still scored it a 9.5 or above. Long winded reply to come later.

EDIT: To note, Zelda, outside of PH, has not sold well in Japan since the record breaking Ocarina of Time. None of the Zelda games have sold well over there, and if I had to guess most Japanese gamers don't care as much about Zelda anymore.

The only reason I preorder WW was for that nifty MasterQuest of OoT. I was seriously going to completely avoid it, until that was announced.

I can only wonder how many people made that same decision for the same reasons I did.

Arghhhhh... A thread that's dying for me to go all Zelda defensive and Ninty fanboy on. I'm not going to though, everyone has their opinion and they're entitled to it. ^_^

All I'll say is, Zelda, like many other franchises have a split community of fans. While some may enjoy one particular game, another may hate it. Personal choice is all it is. Cell shaded vs life-like, adult vs child, retro vs modern is always going to be disputed. I personally enjoy all the Zelda titles. Yup, ALL of em. xP

Okay, well, I'll say this: In my opinion, Nintendo hasn't been producing epic Zelda games since Oot. I just beat TP and though it was prettier to look at I still think Oot owns it. Oot's graphics were the best they could have been for that time while we all know TP's graphics could have been better. Oot's story had a lot more depth and emotion while, for me, TP did not convey much emotion. I didn't give a crap what happened to those kids, to me all that garbage was just expected things for nintendo to add. While TP tried to change things up plot-wise I don't feel it was executed well. As a long-time Zelda fan I was pretty displeased with it. BUT TP marks a new and exciting path for future Zelda games. There were a lot of good things about it, but as a "sequel" to Oot it just wasn't my cup of tea. I didn't see a problem with MM or the gameboy Zeldas though. I loved MM and found it pretty charming. As far as the hand-helds go, I don't think gameboy games like that that last like 15 hours are supposed to be that amazing ya know.

Well, the added plot in TP made it tie together with the rest of the game, in my opinion at least. And I agree that MM was a great game (as stated above). I think that if a handheld game is epic, then that's great, but if it's not, the it's really not that big of a deal, you can't expect to much of it.

Don't call yourself a true zelda fan. Most people have gotten over WW's art style, which can show greater emotion and expression then the realistic graphics. Zelda hasn't downfalled at all. Wind Waker is the best game in the series, you just can't do anything but complain about the graphics in WW. I don't care if you have to play as kid Link.

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. 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.

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.

To the OP, I agree to an extent that the Zelda franchise has fallen from grace. Yet, I despise you for your narrow-minded hate of MM. jk .
Seriously, if MM was "obviously a hastily-released game whose only goal was to absorb and bask in the glory of Ocarina of Time," its title would be Twilight Princess. Worry not though, you'll learn to appreciate the subtlety of MM one day, young one.

Also, just wanted to point out, the Oracle games were the Swan Songs of the GBC, not the Opening Acts for the GBA. So your view on them is pretty much non-legit.

Originally Posted by Orici

Hee hee, you make me laugh.
First off, Link's 10 or 12, not 8:XD.
The cell-shading brought out immense emotion from the game, which helped to connect the players' emotions to the game. It worked out very well.
And if you refuse to acknowledge it as a Zelda game...well you're just bordering on delusional.
Judging by appearances is a mistake.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

TWW because it gave me an expansive overworld and a Link that showed emotion frequently.

Originally Posted by Master jedi

Why is TWW such a bad game? The characters actually show expression. they have a greater range of motion. So if you don't like the first glance of how a game looks it is a failure? Don't judge a book by its cover I say.

Don't call yourself a true zelda fan. Most people have gotten over WW's art style, which can show greater emotion and expression then the realistic graphics.

I never understood why "the characters show emotion!" was such a valid defense argument. Just because the characters are expressive doesn't advocate poor character designs; poor character designs which alienated many fans of the series. That's not to say I didn't connect with Link myself, because I did, but it was more because of Eiji Aunoma's great storytelling rather than HUGE EYES.

Speaking of the director of the series since MM, one thing is clear about him: Though coming up short in the worst possible moments (triforce hunt in them middle of WW's climax and the ENTIRE SECOND HALF of TP), Eiji Aunoma is a great storyteller. His 3 console games carry as much emotional weight as any of the great Final Fantasies. It's just that his aesthetic choices for WW (again, I'm not bashing cell-shading, just the character designs) have pretty much crippled the franchise and left it without a solid and appealing identity.

I'll like to point out the orcale games were for the GBC, not GBA.

Having the four swords link up game was a terrible idea. I don't have anyone to play it with. And yes, MM was terrible, especially for a sequel to one of the most beloved games ever.

But otherwise I love Zelda and all its other games.

Originally Posted by 209116032

Okay, well, I'll say this: In my opinion, Nintendo hasn't been producing epic Zelda games since Oot. I just beat TP and though it was prettier to look at I still think Oot owns it. Oot's graphics were the best they could have been for that time while we all know TP's graphics could have been better. Oot's story had a lot more depth and emotion while, for me, TP did not convey much emotion. I didn't give a crap what happened to those kids, to me all that garbage was just expected things for nintendo to add. While TP tried to change things up plot-wise I don't feel it was executed well. As a long-time Zelda fan I was pretty displeased with it. BUT TP marks a new and exciting path for future Zelda games. There were a lot of good things about it, but as a "sequel" to Oot it just wasn't my cup of tea. I didn't see a problem with MM or the gameboy Zeldas though. I loved MM and found it pretty charming. As far as the hand-helds go, I don't think gameboy games like that that last like 15 hours are supposed to be that amazing ya know.

TP's graphics could of been better on the "port", yes. However, Twilight Princess is a Gamcube game. People forget that because they made an executive decision to release the wii version first. The graphics were the very best that the gamecube could produce. If your talking overall that the TP could of had better graphics for that time period, then I must remind you that OOT WAS NOT the best graphical game of it's time. PC games had already surpassed OOT at that time, and there was a little known system at the time known as the dreamcast.... that blew the graphics of the N64 and the playstation out of the water.

"all the garbage" as you you put it in the TP story line is only garbage to you now, because it's all been there and done that before in games like OOT. If OOT never existed, I think your opinion on the TP story line would of changed vastly.

As for the rest of the complaints in post one? I know I said I'd give a long winded reply... but it's just not worth the effort. All I can say is, to me, Majora's Mask was BETTER then OOT. There, I said it. Good day.

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.

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.

He didn't say he TOTALLY judged only graphics just PARTLY geez dense posters. Reread before you blow off some steam will ya? (steam valve blows)

The problem I think is that Nintedno plays with the graphic styles too much which means they can not improve upon an exisitng engine becaue one dosen't exist due to major switches. Realistic to Cell Shaded back to Realistic. If they kept it the same they could add in more details that would't be there before like. OOT may not have had realistic lighting but if TP was done next in line then it would have shadows going up and down depnding on where you stand if WW came after TP.

Then when WW came they could stick to cell shading for a few games and you will be able to observe changes as the games go by and by the 3rd game you will be wondering why you liked the first Cel shaded game so well. Just my 2 rupee thoughts.

from 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.

4th Triforce says: He didn't say he TOTALLY judged only graphics just PARTLY geez dense posters. Reread before you blow off some steam will ya? (Steam valve blows.) It's true that that is one of the things you will think about because it's brighter and catches your eyes seeing the screenshots. so in order to fight the temptation you have to read between the lines in order to get a better "picture." Sorry for the bad pun at the end but couldn't think of anything better.