General Zelda thread

[KaizokuJinbei]

@Sheep:

I don't even remember, was there a lot to do in OoT before entering the dungeons?
Probably a lot of stuff like "well, you can do this quest, clear this spider den, jump down this grave, but it's not really required" while MM had things like clearing out the gerudo fortress and finding all Zora eggs, bringing rain to the creepy zombie filled hills, making the deku temple rise out of the water, making the ice melt in the Goron village, it's actually better than I remember
but yeah, I agree with a lot of you good folks here; MM or WW for me anyday, great games

Only other thing OoT had aside from heart piece to collect is the skulltulas

[Hiroy]

For a bigger wallet of all things.

[CCC]

@Hiroy:

I think OoT is a bit… eh.... How should I say this nicely? Duller than MM? It was great when I played it the first time, and the final boss is still memorable. Outiside a few moments, it's kinda barren and barely my favorite Zelda game anymore.

Yeah, this is it, for me. OoT is a standout game, but everyone should really try 1) first playing MM, and then 2) going back and doing OoT. The difference is stark, and not in a good way. Going in reverse shows a completely stripping of all the heart and emotion. Right down to the npc dialogue.

[Demon Rin]

@MetaMario:

also I've never played Skyward Sword. ….yay? nay?

Skyward Sword is my number 2 best Zelda game right under Majora's Mask, so I'd definitely say Yay.

One of the biggest things people have a problem with, is the motion controls. If you're not on-board to the idea, you never will be. Basically, the controls in Skyward Sword are what Nintendo always promised the Wii motion controls were SUPPOSED to be. Funny, it took them till near the end of the Wii's lifecycle to finally get it right, but that's exactly what they did.

Link moves the sword pretty much 1:1 with how you move it, meaning you can slice in pretty much any direction one would normally slice a sword. It also creates a funny kinda moment… you can have him running while holding the wiimote in a derpy position, and Link will indeed keep holding the sword just as derpily.
The big draw of this tho is that it opens up a whole world of fun gameplay mechanics, mostly being, there are enemies and bosses that can only be beaten by slicing them in certain ways in certain areas. Like this game's Deku-babas. They can only be killed if their faces are sliced right where the hinge of their mouth is. If you try to hit the bulbous parts of their head, it won't work, so you have to aim your slices so that you slice in that exact area. One of the boss fights is a straight up sword fight with a Link-sized opponent, and he will block dynamically, you have to pay attention to how he's blocking and strike in the spot he's leaving open, which changes.
This dynamic is WONDERFUL IMO and really changes up how the game is played.

Another thing people didn't like but I didn't mind, the game only has 4 main areas. The Sky, Faron Woods, The Eldin Volcano, and Lanaryu Desert. Because of this, some back-tracking occurs and there are parts where, after visiting Eldin for example, you need to come back after unlocking other stuff to access a new area of Eldin where the game continues, but to get to the new area, you have to retread some of the space you already went through and in some cases, even go back into dungeons you thought you'd completed. People didn't like this, figuring new locales would be better, but I don't mind it. It's not unprecedented either (To get to the Forest, Fire, and Water, and Shadow Temples in OOT, you need to retread some space as well)
I didn't mind it, but that's what happens, so YMMV.

Lastly, The only criticism I'll say I agree with 100% is that the game DOES handhold you too much at times. The tutorial that starts the game takes forever to trudge through and the game offers hints way too frequently, but I don't see that as a major fault of the designers of this game, as if you pay attention, Nintendo was doing this in E-V-E-R-Y game around this time, so I think this was some kind of Mandate from his bosses at Nintendo that Aonuma put that in there. He's promised at E3 this year that this specifically would be addressed in future games, and kindof already was in ALBW (The hints were there but were 100% optional and the game wasn't obnoxious about suggesting them)

So yeah, there's my Two cents on Skyward Sword, hope it helps some.

[jmbjr]

It's hard for me to say what my favorite Zelda is, but I usually find myself going back to Majora's Mask. It's definitely unique as far as Zelda games go, and I don't think I've played another game quite like it. The emphasis on side quests was neat, and the three-day cycle, while sometimes annoying, was an intriguing concept that had very cool story and gameplay implications. The atmosphere of the game is fantastic as well, and the story has some of the most memorable moments in the series for me. I still feel like the encounters with the four giants are some of the most powerful "meeting a diety" moments I've played in a game, and the final battle is awesomely trippy and weird. It also holds a special place in my heart for being the first Zelda I ever played all the way through - lots of childhood memories of playing this game.

I agree that MM makes Ocarina of Time feel kind of dull by comparison - to be completely honest, I don't get why so many people still try to claim OoT is the best Zelda when the one immediately after it was far more unique in memorable. Not that OoT was bad or anything (I still love it), it's far from my favorite.

Wind Waker is definitely up there and is close to MM for me, but the Triforce Quest near the end just kills the game for me. Also, upon replaying it via the HD remake, I realized that what you need to do to access the Earth and Wind temples is pretty roundabout and unclear if you don't know what you're doing. It felt like the last third of the game was kind of rushed in that regard, even though the temples and finale were still great. Still, the sailing was fun for me, the art style was beautiful, the puzzles and combat were fun, and it had the best versions of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf so far imo.

Skyward Sword is definitely divisive, though I'm personally on the love it side. I like motion controls when they're done right, and I loved how they were handled in the game; like with Demon Rin, I thought that those controls were how games on the Wii were always meant to be. The handholding could be a little annoying, but it never pissed me off like with some people, and I didn't mind that there were "only" three areas - each area was filled with things to do, and you unlock new parts of those areas when you go back anyway, so I never saw this as a big deal. Really liked the story and characters as well - Groose was awesome, Ghirahim was an entertaining villain, the residents of Skyloft were colorful and fun, Impa was cooler than she ever has been, and this was one of the few times when I actually cared about Zelda as a character.

What DID bother me about Skyward Sword was that you had to fight the Imprisoned three times and that you fight Ghirahim in the Fire Sanctuary again instead of having another cool fire boss. It kind of felt like Nintendo ran out of ideas for bosses, so they just had you do a few of them multiple times with minor twists instead. It's a shame, because the bosses were pretty cool; Koloktos and the Ghirahim battles are some of my favorite bosses in the series. Still, I love the game as a whole.

The only Zelda I really dislike is Phantom Hourglass; seriously, the Temple of the Ocean King was the worst idea Nintendo ever had for the series, and absolutely ruined what could've been a solid game. I even kind of like Zelda II, even though I suck at it…

[Wagomu]

I thought SS was the worst 3D Zelda game with Twilight Princess just ahead of it. Granted that the worst Zelda game is still better than a lot of standard gaming fare, it just felt really regressive.

The good:

-The game is one of the best looking things on the Wii and is quite beautiful.
-A few of the dungeons are great. The Ancient Cistern in particular might be among my top five favorite Zelda dungeons (and has one of my favorite Zelda bosses).
-The desert area has one of the coolest gimmicks in a Zelda game.
-The motion control is pretty fun, when used correctly. The sword is cool and the whip item was a lot of fun, too.
-There is actually some decent characterization in this game, mostly of Groose.

The bad/ugly:

-For a Zelda game, SS is very linear. There are three distinct and separate quest zones -four if you include the sky- and they're all pretty straightforward.
-The sky is more of a hub world and it is incredibly disappointingly empty. In the sky you can find a few sidequests, a few minigames, drop points for treasure chests that must be unlocked on the surface and lots and lots of rocks.
-The sky treasure chest thing is needless padding. You have to hit something in the surface world and then return to the sky world, scour the rocks for the corresponding chest and THEN you get an item of little consequence to the game.
-A lot of the motion control sword fighting is used to combat gimmicks. Don't expect actual sword fighting unless you think that actual sword fights involve opponents that always leave one opening in their defense along a major axis.
-The Imprisoned is just terrible. You get to fight him in a long and tedious boss fight three times. The same exact boss fight with only a little variation three whole goddamn times.
-Fi makes me was to strangle someone. Particularly Fi. She constantly states the obvious, always prefaced by some __% chance of it being true or false. Plus, her text scrolls at an excruciating pace and cannot be skipped or sped up, because it is just SO important that you know there's a 79.322% chance that the big key goes into the big lock.
-The final dungeon and the final boss are disconnected, which totally kills the hype in either. It just feels like the last dungeon is missing a boss and the last boss is missing a dungeon. Terrible design choice.
-A minor gripe compared to the others, but the instrument du jour is really just a glorified key. Every song is played just as a part of story progression and they are all played in the exact same way: like a metronome.
-I suppose this one isn't a part of the main game, but when you boot SS up for the first time, you must sit through a 3 minute long mandatory tutorial on how to plug the Wii Motion Plus into the only port on the Wii controller.

[jmbjr]

That last complaint is with any game that has the Wii Motion Plus - I remember having to deal with that with Wii Sports Resort.

I also thought it was a little odd that the Sky Keep didn't have a boss, but I didn't find it terrible or even bad - it just meant that there was a bit longer before the actual boss (and really, it was just a cutscene and then a brief moment to let you prep yourself). I thought the finale had good buildup, so I didn't think it was a "boss missing a dungeon", but rather a big finale to the whole game.

The sky treasure chest thing was…a thing, really. Just an extra thing you do on the side if you feel like it. Don't really see how that can be considered padding any moreso than any given side quest or collectable you seek out. Sure, it takes longer than just finding the item in the first place, but I thought it was an okay idea and it never annoyed me or anything - heck, if anything it gave something else to do in the sky, which like you said was kind of empty with not much to do.

The linear argument is one that I kind of see, but that's mostly because you progress through the zones similarly to how you progress through the temples, so there's not as much roaming around wondering where to go next - and honestly, I kind of liked that. It seemed like you were much more active in between temples in actually doing stuff; solving puzzles, fighting enemies, getting past obstacles, etc. There's still some sidequests, collectables, secrets, and minigames, too, so it's not like it's 100% linear.

I will concur about the sky, though - that was some seriously wasted potential, especially considering that was such an important part of the story. I don't know what Nintendo was thinking by leaving it as empty as it was.

[RuNa]

@Noqanky:

Also, I'm going to be the weirdo and say I didn't finish Majora's Mask because I got bored of the dungeons. There I said it.

You got bored…..when there were only FOUR dungeons?! That was the biggest knock on the game when it came out. Pretty much everyone I knew went:

Oot....8 dungeons, all new engine.

MM....uses the same engine and only gave us FOUR dungeons!

For me, the worst Zelda is 2 :\

Best two are OoT and LA.

[Panekai]

The first Zelda I played was A Link to the past(either that or LA, I don't remember), but after getting to the dark world, my child self couldn't figure out what the hell to do. Years later I tried again and got farther but I'm currently stuck at one part, I plan to finish it along with a few other Zelda games after I finish some other games on my list.

The biggest Zelda games of my childhood however were OoT and MM. Me and my friend played the living hell out of those, even if we couldn't beat them they were just so much fun to figure out. We did borrow another friends copy of MM who had all the masks so we had a lot of fun fooling around with that. Namely beating the bosses with FD Link. Only about a year or so ago I decided to replay them and see how far I could get without any help. I did beat them both without help so I felt a little proud of myself doing something my younger self couldn't. It was my first time seeing the ending to OoT and the final battle gave me chills. The atmosphere was fantastic I thought. I plan on getting all the masks in MM also at one point soon.

Although my favorite Zelda is Wind Waker. It came out at a time when I was going through a phase of "buying the strategy guide for everything" so I didn't have much problem finishing it, also is the first Zelda I beat. I loved damn everything about the game. The art style was amazing, Link had an amusing personality, it had the best camera I had ever seen in a game. The sailing is probably what I liked MOST of the game. It just felt like a huge adventure, sailing on the huge map and discovering an island I had never seen before by complete chance and exploring it. The combat felt really smooth and I really liked some of Links new moves, and good god the ending cutscenes and battle felt great to experience. I don't even know how many times I replayed that final battle, it was just so much fun and climactic. The game as a whole just blew me away, thank god I had the guide to help when I got stuck, cuz some of the stuff in the game is too damn cryptic. Oh, and getting to play the game again in the lobster outfit just gave me more reasons to replay the game. I really wish other Zeldas(or games in general) did this, it's small but damn do I appreciate it.

Replayed TP recently since I didn't touch it since 2009. It's an alright game, a really disappointing follow-up to WW imo. It didn't have near the amount of exploration or charm. I also felt it was taking too much from OoT. I do like Midna more than the other partners though. SS, I don't have much the to add that hasn't been said already, I don't like motion controls, but I did enjoy the sword controls, everything else felt off and unnecessary motion-control wise. I was mostly sad about the world though, at first I thought " wow, it's gonna be like WW but in the sky!" NOPE. I liked in more than TP at least. I have high hopes for the Wii U Zelda.

Sadly I barely touched most of the handheld games. I completed MC and PH but that's it. After I finish my backlog I'm gonna correct that though and finish all of them along with the classics.

[WarshipArc]

I just finished Skyward Sword about three weeks ago so I may as well chime in to get some feelings I have about the game off my chest.

The game had allot of neat moments (like the Lanyryu dessert) and fun boss fights, seriously I'd say its about on par with Twilight Princess as far as dungeon quality is concerned. Also for whatever it's worth the NPC's are a lot more interesting than the citizens of TP. My favorite was the demon you helped become human. It's no Clock Town but I did enjoy exploring Skyloft, which is more than I could say for TP and PH.

MAJOR STORY SPOILERS

! The story added little to the origins and mytho's of the Zelda world, in fact it raised even more fucking questions. Like why did Hylia get the Triforce? Was their an actual reason for Demise to want it? In fact who were these clowns, all we learn is that Hylia decides to play some sort of long con to save humanity and the Triforce, and that Demise really really wants the Triforce and thinks humans are total fucking pansies. Were their any other lesser gods like Hylia? I feel like we missed the first two parts of a much larger epic.
! Ghirahim was a boring asshole, the only thing remotely interesting about him was that he turned out to be the evil Master Sword. Hell after a while I had forgotten he was even in the game until he kidnapped Zelda after the last dungeon. Why not bring in Demise at the mid point and just have him bringing down the apocalypse while Link gets his macguffin's, would have made the endgame fetch quests a lot more interesting.Also he looked like the kind of nerd that Groose would wedgie back at the Knight Academy, hell he'd probably be fetching pre-swole Fledge soda's. He was a skinny doofus with a crooked bowl cut.

As for the motion controls, I found them to be really bad, super sloppy and imprecise when it came to sword play. This is usually balanced out by how easy the game is, but the Ghirahim fights really pushed my patience since those were the only fights that had any real challenge. Honestly I felt that Twilight Princess had better motion controls.

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy SS, and I would recommend.
But as a long time fan I can't help but ponder the parts that I didn't like.

[MetaMario]

@Demon:

So yeah, there's my Two cents on Skyward Sword, hope it helps some.

Well thank you for the detailed overview! All of you, that is.

It certainly has gathered more attention, but….hmmm. I'll beat Wind Waker HD first and see if I still want to try it or go back to Majora's Mask.

[ShinigamiKing]

So I'm probably the only one here who prefers Zelda games to more linear and dungeon based - or at least, if we have an open world, let every part be bomb-able and have something.

OoT's world felt empty cuz of how you traversing a primarily empty environment.

[Cyan D. Funk]

There should be no straight lines in a Zelda game. Ever.

[ShinigamiKing]

@Cyan:

There should be no straight lines in a Zelda game. Ever.

When I say linear, I mean "quick to get to dungeons" -

or something like that

[Foolio]

@ShinigamiKing:

When I say linear, I mean "quick to get to dungeons" -

or something like that

Ehh. To me dungeons are more like a puzzle-y reward for my progress and exploration of the world.

[Hiroy]

I agree with you there on empty space in between dungeons. OoT and TP especially. But I dunno. I would not want dungeon crawl centered Zelda game… UNLESS it's a spinoff >> <<.

Honestly I like the more condensed approach to overworlds than the overly large and empty ones with hardly anything on it. Majora's Mask did this to some extent. And Link's Awakening!
I mean, look at this beauty: http://37.media.tumblr.com/7cc90824d9ceb5da7d8ce8cc14b15ca8/tumblr_mweba96cj41qlviqpo1_1280.png

It almost seemed like the dungeons were directly under every explorable area (there's even a dungeon that exits you to certian parts of the overworld… it's not usefull in away way, but it's a fine touch).

[valiantt]

Yeaaah…this is exactly why I prefer MM over Oot. The first time playing OoT, I was pretty blown away by how huge it was as there weren't nearly as many "open world-ish" games like it during the time and it felt pretty massive. Though, playing it again recently, it feel pretty barren with a fair number of characters being fairly flat in spite of their quirkiness (yeah I know I shouldn't expect too much depth in characters from a Zelda game but still...).

In contrast, MM was definitely a LOT more cohesive due to how condensed it is with a lot more characters that seem to be a dynamic part of the universe (rather than decorations like a fair number of them in Oot). And with the quirky-ness of the 3 Day system, the setting definitely felt more alive. So yeah...in terms of design, MM trumps OoT in most aspects due to its cohesiveness.

[Kisoto]

I got into the Zelda games late as I always got the hand-me-down system from my brother. I'm pretty sure that Twilight Princess was out when I first played one, and the one I played was OoT. It was a present from my then boyfriend who couldn't believe that I'd never played it give that I had played things like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts. Granted, I'd always played the FF games out of order (was playing 7 and 10 at the same time), but anyway… I remember being drawn into the Zelda world almost instantly. Like I was fascinated by it and really wanted to explore and find out the mysteries of everything. There was a sense of wonder and danger at the same time... I think it's the first game that ever truly frightened me actually. Those corpse things that freeze you and shriek made me stop playing for a short while. But I always went back. Stuff like that carried as I was able to get my hands on other titles. Really, each story feels like a different version of the same game, which does lend to that consistency. The wonder never dies since each game brings a new things to the playing field; it keeps growing.

So no, it's not really nostalgia that I enjoy the games, it's the wonder of it all! The Zelda titles just get ​what it means to be fantastical.

[Monkey D. Destiny]

Got A Link Between Worlds a few hours ago. Very good so far for being my first 2D Zelda I played.

[Foolio]

@Monkey:

Got A Link Between Worlds a few hours ago. Very good so far for being my first 2D Zelda I played.

It's a really great game. I'm actually currently in the middle of A Link To the Past, which I've played several times but (don't kill me guys) never actually finished as a kid, for some reason. This time I'm going for the 100% treatment. I have to say that after having played Link Between Worlds, LttP is… not that spectacular. I won't argue with anyone's nostalgia putting it up at their favorite 2D Zelda ever, but it has a LOT of rough edges. Frustrating mechanics, lackluster dungeons and map system, pain in the ass travel (especially between worlds), odd item placement and progression.

I really think LBW improved on it in every single way, EXCEPT some of the cleverly designed puzzles/secrets where you have to return from the Dark World in the right spot. LBW doesn't give you the freedom of switching wherever you want. But, in that aspect, Oracle of Ages also does it way better. Either way Link's Awakening is the true pioneer of the 2D Zelda dungeon design that was refined in the Oracle games, both of which easily surpass LttP by a wide margin.

[Demon Rin]

You know what would have been neat?

If they remade A Link to the Past and made the remake a playable extra you unlock when you beat ALBW.

It's got exactly the same Map, the character Model of Link can be reused. A lot of the same items exist in both games.

They PROBABLY could have fit it in as an extra considering it would have just beeen a repurposing of all the assets already on the cart. Very little in the way of new assets would have needed to be created.

[Green_vs_Red]

At the very least we'd have gotten a Link To The Past on 3DS which I'm wondering why isn't playable on 3DS along with any other SNES games.

[jmbjr]

For those of you who watch Egoraptor's Sequelitis series, his Zelda video is (finally) out, and brings up some interesting (and many controversial) points:

Some extended thoughts of mine:

! Very interesting points on exploration and motivation. I don't agree with a lot of it, but some things that I did agree on to an extent:
! 1. The waiting. It's something I've kind of come just accept and deal with, but yeah, it is kind of annoying. Don't see what's such a big deal about waiting on chests, though - that only ever bothers me when it turns out it's just the compass, since I never cared about it. Definitely agree about the waiting during combat in OoT, though.
! 2. Motivation for exploring. It doesn't really bother me that much, but I do see the point of going to do something in a game just because you want to, regardless of what the story says. Although imo giving reason for those things makes the world feel like…you know, a world, where there are characters who want things and have struggles and whatnot. Still, I kind of agree that many Zeldas focus too much on "do this because this person said so".
! 3. Focusing more on the puzzles themselves than what you get at the end. This one I agree more on the principle than on "this need to change!!!!", since at least part of the fun for me is seeing what I get. Still, there has been a bit too much emphasis on getting a particular item, and at times the way you get them isn't that special or memorable anymore (again, at times).
! 4. Artificial barriers. This one is something I completely agree with. If you show us something to explore, it's really just a big tease to put some guard there or whatever so you can't get to it unless you deliver a note/play a song/do x first. One of the reasons I'm happy about the approach of Zelda Wii U.
! 5. Jumping across platforms being kinda pointless without something else being involved. I don't think it's a big deal, but from a game design perspective, yeah, I do see that.
! 6. The "find the eye in the room and shoot it" idea being not that fun. OoT is the most guilty of this from what I can remember, which is probably part of the reason that I don't hold in as high a regard. I'm fine with it if there's complications to it, but there should be at least something more than just looking around the room for an eye then shooting it. That's not really a puzzle.
! 6. ALBW is awesome.
! A few things I strongly disagreed with:
! 1. His assessment of SS. It's funny how he goes on a rant about how Zelda should try new things, but never even mentioned how the dash mechanic changed how you could explore areas or get passed obstacles, how the motion controls (even if you don't like them) changed how you approach different situations, how the bomb bowling (why'd he emphasize it so much like it was a bad thing? I seriously didn't get that at all) allowed a new approach at using bombs, etc. and just mentioned the stuff that had been done in previous Zeldas that was back. Also, for someone who said "I hope I didn't piss anyone off" at the end of the video, going off on such a vicious tangent on game that (like it or not) a lot of people love without saying anything redeeming about it is a pretty sure-fire way to piss people off. He's allowed to not like the game and all, but Jesus, most of the video he just kind of went "ugh, FUCK SS!" and didn't even go into great detail about it until near the end (and even then it was him ranting about how much he hated it - yeah, I understood why a little better, but not only did I not agree with all of his reasoning but he ignored anything about the game that was objectively good or well done). I'm not just saying this because I love the game, as I do understand a lot of the criticisms for it, but he acted like it was some kind of cardinal sin against gaming or something, which I could not disagree more with.
! 2. His criticism of z-targeting. First of all, I never saw "separating" exploration and combat as a bad thing, and I'd rather have fighting enemies feel like fighting enemies then just pushing a button to defeat an opponent just so they can be more "together" somehow. Second, I don't even think exploration and combat are that separated in the 3D games, anyway - you look around the room (explore it), see an enemy, and fight it before moving on. That's not that much different from what you do in the 2D games, is it? Third, while you do only target one enemy at a time, that doesn't mean you can only focus on that one enemy in combat. Fighting more than one enemy at a time is still very doable, and the argument about the bats would make more sense to me if re-targeting wasn't so quick and easy.
! 3. The perspective argument, especially in regard to the sliding spike traps. Just because something isn't in view at a particular moment doesn't mean you can't plan around it; you're supposed to observe the way they're moving and time yourself appropriately so you don't get hit. I'd argue that adds a certain element of strategy and thinking that wasn't in the 2D games as much. I don't love the spike traps or anything, but I feel like he was a little off-base there.
! One thing I'm kind of "whatever" about: that you tend to just beat the boss of the dungeon with the item you got in it. I mean, yeah, that's a little predictable, but for me the fun of those bosses is seeing what the boss looks like and how you're supposed to use the item in question. The first time I played OoT, I had no idea how the mirror shield would be used against Twinrova until the battle got going; in TP, using the spinner against Stallord was obvious, but the way it worked into the battle made me go, "oh, cool!"; in SS, yeah you use the whip against Koloktos...at first, then you use it's own weapons against it in a really awesome way that completely made the boss battle. Still, I do find myself going, "gee, I wonder if I should through bombs in his mouth" or "gee, I wonder if I should shoot the eye with the bow I just got" from time to time, so I do see where he's coming from. I just don't think it's something that ruins the feel of a battle necessarily.

[Monkey King]

@jmbjr:

Jeez and I thought I had ADD.

There were some fair shots in there (the combat waiting thing), but a lot of that was asinine levels of nitpicking. Some of it just bizarre.
Like the complaint about the combat "shifting worlds" is something I can guarentee no one else on earth has noticed let alone cared about if they even did.
And then complaining about having a plot is just sort of…bamboozling. He's not even right that the first game didn't have that, it came in the manual like most NES/SNES games did it.
Then complaining that there's no suspense about Dungeon Items...because it's not as pointed out by a big treasure chest with a key. What?
You were always suspenseful by virtue of entering a Dungeon...all dungeons have a special item..even the mini ones did..hell even the fucking Gerudo Training Ground did lol.
Every single Zelda game that's the rule, when you enter a Dungeon you know you're going to find a cool new tool somewhere inside. Is that not suspense enough for him?
Not knowing exactly when or where it might pop up doesn't qualify as suspense? Only the big key/big chest thing they had in LttP? Really?

As for Skyward Sword, I can't really talk about it because I have the most damning review of all. I literally just got bored and stopped playing.
Motherfuckers don't give me an overworld? No exploration outside the ONE town? Turn it into Zelda Galaxy?
I'm out braw.

Fuck.
Linear.
Game.
Design.
Forever.

5. Jumping across platforms being kinda pointless without something else being involved. I don't think it's a big deal, but from a game design perspective, yeah, I do see that.

There was barely any of that in the game, and where it was there it was mostly just for show.
Which is also part of game design.
Him complaining about jumping over a shot of Link leaping over a bunch of lava on a rope bridge just shows me and this guy plain don't play games for the same reasons or some shit.

[Noqanky]

A lot of the stuff he notices also has to do with general game design from an entire era. I can definitely see the idea of 3D Zelda requiring more progression and story telling as kind of a requirement since you can't have a world of such a huge scale be living and breathing and immediately open to explore. I can't imagine the N64 being capable of that. iirc even aonuma mentioned that being an issue and how in Wind Waker they wanted an open world but each island still wound up having to be its own individual microcosm. We can now hope that with greater hardware potential we will see a 3D Zelda in the style of the 2D Zelda, without roadblock or linear progress.
The find the eye and shoot it is a similar idea … hey, now we have 3D, let's show it off and encourage players to use it. These games paved the road for exploration in a 3D space and upped the idea of environmental awareness from the simplicity of the 2D Zeldas. It's something that just didn't exist before. Overdone? Perhaps, but I can see why it's there. Same for jumping over pits from square to square: it's them playing with the new 3D environment in Zelda and using it to give a greater sense of depth and danger. Level design that contributes environment and ambiance even without increasing actual challenge can still be good level design, as it contributes to the experience.

Regarding motivation, I again acknowledge it as a general trend in gaming. Before they couldn't tell a story because they just didn't have the power to do so in a compelling way. With technology advancing it became more and more possible and of course they embraced it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a story, and it makes sense that in a gaming medium you will intertwine it with gameplay. It's a logical progression. From that time looking forward I'm sure many kids had their mind blown off when they realized cinematics, special effects and actual epic stories could happen. But now kids have grown up with computers and the concept of customizing everything and everything is you and you're the creator and decision-maker (not a bad thing, btw), so of course sandbox games and stuff like minecraft are exploding, and now everyone looks back and original Zelda was the best and the rest is lesser crap ... well the times were different, the audience was different, and the technology was different. So crucifying Ocarina of Time for this sort of stuff is a pointless nitpick from 20/20 hindsight that ignores the roadblocks and environment of the time. It's looking at a game from the 90s with the mentality of someone in the 2010s, which can be very different.

As for the enemies and waiting, I personally don't see what's the huge fucking deal about waiting in combat. It actually makes it more believable for me since in a real world scenario you won't just enter swinging your sword wildly and expect enemies to take it. The idea is the idea of a sparring situation in which sometimes you just have to stick to defense until you are capable of noticing an enemy's weak point, at which point you exploit it and succeed.
Also, sure, when it's one enemy it won't be difficult, but add a bunch of enemies and you have to time all attacks accordingly while watching your back, and then you got a situation in which you have to multitask, remember various patterns at once, mind your environment and movement, position yourself accordingly, and prioritize. Sure, maybe it's still not the hardest thing ever, but it's definitely engaging and contributes to the idea of problem solving.

But then again, if that guy can't wait for a chest to open then I can't expect him to appreciate a realistic fighting scenario involving patience. I mean seriously, this guy just gave me the impression he wants to blitz through everything and waiting for anything makes the game limiting, and I don't think that's the case.

But w.e., my two cents.

[Wagomu]

The whole separate combat from exploration thing was kind of weird to me. If anyone was actually in a situation where they entered a room and noticed some kind of puzzle and skeletons arisen from the dead for the sole purpose of making you take their place in hell, then I'm fairly sure that 9/10 people would be trying not to get killed by the living skeletons. And the remaining one would probably be preoccupied in contemplating the philosophical and scientific implications of living freaking skeletons.

[Foolio]

I don't understand how any of you made it past 10 seconds into the video.

[MagiciteKefka]

While I do like Game Grumps (they're like one of few channels I actually follow on Youtube), Egoraptor just shouldn't be allowed to voice his opinion after GG, since everything he's said in any Sequelitis video is negated by everything he says and does otherwise. Not to mention that every point he makes in the video is just stupid as hell on its own. God, I'm kinda pissed off right now.

[Hiroy]

Hmmm. It does get very nitpicky but he has some interesting points I can get behind. My favorite being the predictabaly behind dungeon tools and what you are "supposed" to do with them. The last 3D Zelda I played was TP, and it was here I started to notice how absolutely boring the formula of dungeon items were. Exploring felt like it was boiled down to:

1. See obscure stuff in the surrounding. I can't interact with it. Immediately assume it's related to the item I'd find ._.
2. Find the item. Go back. Wooow! It was ACTUALY related to that obscure thing I saw earlier. I feel great for figuring that out ._.
3. Oh a boss. I bet I can use this item I found here on it to great effect. Hell yeah! Awesome! I feel accomplished. For repeating the same old thing these games do ._.
4. ME: Deadpan expression .. .. ._.

Just replace any instance I said "obscure" with "obvious", and that's pretty much what exploring dungeons and defeating bosses boiled down to. Link to the Past handled this really nicely by making you enter dungeons at almost any given order, and it wasn't even assured that the items you found in each dungeon would help you in that exact dungeon. It made things feel unpredictable, and also made the "tools" feel like actual upgrades that made Link stronger. Link Between Words was praised for this too, but I've yet to play it. So.

As for the other things he criticized. The "waiting" thing seems kinda all over place. There's certain aspects I liked. Especially the enemy design and difficulty curve portion in combat. But the artificial barriers and story cutscenes are more there to appeal the broad audience, I think. I could do without them myself, ehhh… Can't be as bad as Minish Cap, right? Right?

Looking forward to reading more counter statements. They are more interesting than the video.

[black-leg jex]

@Hiroy:

The last 3D Zelda I played was TP, and it was here I started to notice how absolutely boring the formula of dungeon items were.

tbf that's because twilight princess sticks to the formula more than any other zelda. A lot of it is ripped straight from ocarina of time

[Foolio]

@Hiroy:

Link to the Past handled this really nicely by making you enter dungeons at almost any given order, and it wasn't even assured that the items you found in each dungeon would help you in that exact dungeon. It made things feel unpredictable, and also made the "tools" feel like actual upgrades that made Link stronger.

The dungeons are literally numbered in order on your map. And while you can choose to ignore that because some can be done out of order, a lot can't or it's in a limited fashion. And anyway, having a sort of unified dungeon theme based on a new ability makes each one feel fresh and shows off puzzle concepts that get more elaborate over time if done right, and not just within that particular dungeon. Obviously it shouldn't be the ONLY thing you have to deal with in a dungeon though.

Maybe you'd change your mind after Link Between Worlds where there is very little item creativity in dungeons due to all items being immediately available to you. And don't get your hopes up because most dungeons are marked plain as day with icons for the items that will be required or heavily used within. Often they are even required to get in.

[Monkey King]

I have a REALLY hard time buying into his praise of Zelda 1 as well. That game has dated horribly. Hell it was dated when I first played it on my friend's NES in like 96', which made it my FIRST Zelda game technically.
Sure it's not bad or anything, but it's just really really really boring.
Is it really exploration when it's almost all identical looking tiles that only lead to dungeons? And his criticism about secret grottos in Ocarina somehow doesn't hold true for Zelda 1's case of exactly the same shit with the hidden basement things?

Zelda 1 these days is basically just a top down primitive Metroid.
If that. Half the game was an irritating endurance test because they just vomit enemies at you on every overworld screen.

Yeah, it was super old. I'm being hard. But he was being every bit as hard on Ocarina for limitations and contemporary issues so um, fairs fair.

[Outerspec]

Why is it before now all I ever heard about Majora's Mask was how much it sucked and Orcarina of Time was the bestest thing ever? I've played and beaten both games and I didn't understand people's hate for Majora's Mask. Was it the constant pressure to travel back in time to save the world from the impending doom? I heard people thought using the masks to turn into different creatures was gimmicky. I don't know. All I know is thay I love both games and I thought being a fan of Majora's Mask was rare until I came on here.

As for Twilight Princess…eh.

[Monkey King]

@Hiroy:

Just replace any instance I said "obscure" with "obvious", and that's pretty much what exploring dungeons and defeating bosses boiled down to. Link to the Past handled this really nicely by making you enter dungeons at almost any given order, and it wasn't even assured that the items you found in each dungeon would help you in that exact dungeon. It made things feel unpredictable, and also made the "tools" feel like actual upgrades that made Link stronger.

The Light World Dungeons were all plot guided in order. Impossible to do out of order.
Dark World required the items.
To get from 1 to 2 you needed the hammer to cross the bridge.
To get from 2 to 3 you needed the hookshot to cross the river.
To get to 5 you need the upgraded mitt from 4.
You also need the mitt to get to 6.
To do 5 you need the fire rod from 3.
To do 7 you need the cane from 6.
And 8 can't be done until all those are.

LttP only really had two brief windows where you could go out of order. With 3 put offable to 5. And 5 being the only one you can just leave waiting around it seems till the end. Or 3 AND 5 if you wanted to for some reason.
That's it. Out of like… 12 dungeons.
And the reason is that 5 didn't give you an item. It just gave you basically tougher armor stats with a blue shirt. Not a tool to use in the field.
Like they ran out of ideas.

[Demon Rin]

@Monkey:

I have a REALLY hard time buying into his praise of Zelda 1 as well. That game has dated horribly. Hell it was dated when I first played it on my friend's NES in like 96', which made it my FIRST Zelda game technically.
[…]
Yeah, it was super old. I'm being hard. But he was being every bit as hard on Ocarina for limitations and contemporary issues so um, fairs fair.

Honestly, I agree with you on all of this. I've done a list in the past about how I would rank ALL the Zelda games, and the original isn't even in my top 10. The only reason it isn't in the bottom most tier is that I can recognize that it was revolutionary for its time. The concept of an overworld like that and dungeons you can play in literally any order was unheard of, not to mention the game was one of the first games that allowed saving. They even had to figure out how to make the saving possible in the English version (In Japan it was on a Floppy Disk as part of the Famicom Disk System) which lead to what became the standard for years of putting a battery in the cart to save data.

If I may make a recommendation, Nintendo made an SNES Remake of the original LOZ. It was a Download game for the Japan-only Broadcast Satellaview, so it was called "BS Zelda". It was literally being broadcast so you had to play at a certain time of day, had a time limit, and you played as your own Avatar that you made for the Satellaview service, but otherwise it was a remixed remake of the first game that used A Link to the Past Graphics and assets.

Well, some people saved the Rom on the cart that you DLed the game onto and dumped it, and then some other people patched out the BS elements (The Time restrictions) and patched back in a Link sprite (And a Zelda sprite as an optional extra!) so that it's now basically "The Legend of Zelda: SNES Remake".

If you're interested at all, you can Get it here.

Anytime I want to play the original game just to play it, I play this version.

[Robby]

I got my N64 late and so got to OoT like a decade after it came out… and had a really hard time with it. It just didn't age well to me, and afte playing current gen PS2 3d games where they'd figured out camera, targetting, world layout to lack of things in the environment and such... it just felt really empty. (I had similar problems with Mario 64.) Revolutionary and crazy good for everything they did (and the Sonic games STILL haven't caught up...) but... limited by the tech.

I'm sure its a masterpiece, especially if you played it at the time it came out, I'm giving it another go on the DS, but it... and the first Zelda... haven't aged well just due to the technical limits of the time.

[Monkey King]

@Robby:

I got my N64 late and so got to OoT like a decade after it came out… and had a really hard time with it. It just didn't age well to me, and afte playing current gen PS2 3d games where they'd figured out camera, targetting, world layout to lack of things in the environment and such... it just felt really empty. (I had similar problems with Mario 64.) Revolutionary and crazy good for everything they did (and the Sonic games STILL haven't caught up...) but... limited by the tech.

I have a hard time understanding Ocarina as having bad camera? It's…I mean it's basically perfect?
Mario 64 you're right, even at the time it was a bit awkward. Which was frankly a worse issue considering it was a platformer with lots of instant death for jumping mistakes.
But Ocarina? I can't think of a single camera issue. The first person thing is smooth and fast (unlike Mario's), and you can zip the camera around you easily.
Z Targeting is still part of Zelda games so dated? Eh?

The dude bringing up the blade traps? Uh, when I saw a blade trap in a room I kept the sharp death trap in my mind just like I would an enemy in the room. You only get hit by it if you get careless and forgetful. A nine year old me could manage this, so I have to laugh at the grown man (Egoraptor) who found them so frustrating.

About the only thing that's aged would be the graphics, and even then the game is still attractive in terms of art design and colors and all that.

I also don't get how the environment is empty. Hyrule Field has empty space, but just enough to not feel vacant like Twilight Princess.
All the side areas had plenty of stuff everywhere to find and interact with. The main towns felt alive and interesting etc.

[Robby]

I haven't touched it in years, and that was years after it came out, so I can't say what specifically I had trouble with. The camera by default was too close to the character maybe encroaching on first person? I just can't play first person at all, so if that's a perspective you went into on a regular basis, that would probably have been the problem for me. (But looking at screenshots it doesn't look like it was?)

Or that you need a targeting system? Or it zoomed around too fast? Or I just didn't play it long enough to get comfortable with it? (I really didn't get too far into the game at all.) I dunno. I just had problems with it, that I DIDN'T have with pretty much any other 3D games that came out later, that made it hard for me to enjoy the game.

I also haven't had any nintendo systems since aside from handhelds, so I haven't played any new 3D Zeldas since, so I have no concept of what's become standard. Closest I've got is Okami, which I loved the shit out of.

I intend to give it another go on the DS remake, like I already said. I've played a lot more active combat games in 3D since then (including ones that need regular targeting, like Dark Souls) so maybe I'll slip right into it without any trouble at all and thus have no idea what I was ever talking about… or I'll rediscover whatever my problem was in about 5 minutes. I'll let you know.

[Monkey King]

@Robby:

I haven't touched it in years, and that was years after it came out, so I can't say what specifically I had trouble with. The camera by default was too close to the character maybe encroaching on first person? I just can't play first person at all, so if that's a perspective you went into on a regular basis, that would probably have been the problem for me. (But looking at screenshots it doesn't look like it was?)

This was the norm. Though depending on where you were in smaller spaces that changed slightly. Smaller hallways made the camera closer.
There was lots of literal first person perspective in regards to aiming your slingshot/hookshot/boomerang/bow though. So if you've always struggled to handle first person then that would do it for you. But that's not really the game's fault no?

Or that you need a targeting system?

Well you didn't need it. It wasn't automatic, it only happened if you clicked Z at an enemy or thing. But it was nasty to try and fight sword fights without it.
Anything that you could shoot long range didn't really need it though. Or charging simpler enemies.

Or it zoomed around too fast?

What did?

[Robby]

What did?

The camera. Again, I'm just guessing, I don't remember exactly what my problem was.

But a combination of occasional first person and targeting being highly suggested for combat would probably have been a very bad combo for me, yes.

Especially if it was expected on bosses?

So if you've always struggled to handle first person then that would do it for you. But that's not really the game's fault no?

Keeping it third person or different targeting systems are things other 3D games have done that I have zero problems with.

I know in this case the problem is almost certainly more specifically mine than the game's… but at the same time... other games with similar designs manage to not have that problem for me?

And again, part of it might sheerly be due to age, I've had time to practice at 3D games for years now, I might go to the Zelda with no problems at all when I next try it again.

[Nobodyman]

I was a bit late getting on the Zelda train. I mean, I had a SNES and a NES as a kid, but I just never got into, I guess because I was put off by the medieval fantasy genre. So yeah, even though I totally could have, I didn't grow up with LTTP.

Anyway, OOT was my first Zelda game and at first I wasn't too impressed, but I kept dropping and coming back to it a few times and eventually it really won me over. I definitely think it deserves its reputation as one of the best Zelda games.

As for LTTP, that was actually one of the last Zelda games I played (as far as catching up on them) and…I don't know. I guess there's something wrong with me, cause I thought it was just okay for a Zelda game. Don't get me wrong, it's a good game, but I guess I thought the design was kinda plain the gameplay seemed really conventional. Maybe it's because I was already spoiled by the likes of OOT and WW.

As for the original LoZ, I actually think it's pretty fun. Yes, it's definitely dated, it can get tedious at times, and finding your way around can be irritating without a guide, but I enjoy the fast pace, the freedom to explore, the dungeon crawls, and the (mostly) legitimate challenge of it.

Skyward Sword? Eh, I dunno. Some noticeable issues aside, I liked it.

Now as for Arin....you know, I love the guy, I really do, but he can be an unbearable screwball at times and he can be really anal when it comes to video games. And yeah, that facet of him definitely does show in the video, even though I still think he made some legitimate points. The real irony here is that this guy who has such a meticulous opinion about certain video games, often overlooks really obvious gameplay things during some of his Game Grumps sessions (though there I try to give him the benefit of the doubt since I'm sure he gets distracted by his convos with Danny and especially with games he's not familiar with). In any event, he can be really eccentric as far as his taste in games, but this was still a fun video. If nothing else, it gave us more insight into his unique outlook on video games, but I definitely can't say this was his best Sequelitis.

[Monkey King]

@Robby:

The camera. Again, I'm just guessing, I don't remember exactly what my problem was.

Oh it definitely didn't spin around. In fact it couldn't! Even if you had a buggy controller, it always focused behind Link unless you jiggered with it a bit (you can turn yourself around and run at the camera, but it switches again to your back). You could always refocus it square on your back too if you shifted Link to face in any direction and wanted to have the whole shmeer looking toward wherever.
You might be recalling Mario 64? Where there would be times like that I think.

But a combination of occasional first person and targeting being highly suggested for combat would probably have been a very bad combo for me, yes.

Especially if it was expected on bosses?

Yeah. You don't have experience in first person shooters or anything? Or even the Metroid Prime games?
The first boss you needed to use FP vision, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and briefly with ganondorf/ganon. Had to shoot them with one or more of those projectile weapons in ways that Z targeting really couldn't.

Keeping it third person or different targeting systems are things other 3D games have done that I have zero problems with.

They went first person?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Nobodyman:

As for the original LoZ, I actually think it's pretty fun. Yes, it's definitely dated, it can get tedious at times, and finding your way around can be irritating without a guide, but I enjoy the fast pace, the freedom to explore, the dungeon crawls, and the (mostly) legitimate challenge of it.

Explore what?:blink:

[Nobodyman]

@Monkey:

Explore what?:blink:

I don't know what to tell ya.

Yes, I admit the overworld can be pretty same-y and disorienting at times (it's really helpful to have a map, though I know that's not really a defense), but there are specific locations from the overworld that I can distinctly recall as well as where they're located.

The first dungeon on the island in the middle of the lake, the four-way path where you have to choose the correct sequence (both of them), the graveyard, the mountains with the tumbling boulders, that little island you have to use the raft to get to, Spectacle Rock, etc.

[Robby]

@Monkey:

Yeah. You don't have experience in first person shooters or anything? Or even the Metroid Prime games?

I do now. It's been a decade and a half. But the first person tends to make me queasy and I have trouble getting my bearings or keeping track of the crap around me. I only got through Mass Effect thanks to the auto homing dash attack and it being at least somewhat third-person. Shooters really are not my thing. At all.

(Even in RL I have problems with it due to a lazy eye thing destroying my depth perception.. though somehow I was okay with Goldeneye?)

And no, no Metroid Prime. N64 was the last non-handheld nintendo console I owned.

They went first person?

Long as the character is on camera I'm okay. Full blown first person just messes with me. Not a fan of targetting either, I never remember to do it… but concede the necessity for things like sniping and long distance shots.

[Monkey King]

@Nobodyman:

I don't know what to tell ya.

Yes, I admit the overworld can be pretty same-y and disorienting at times (it's really helpful to have a map, though I know that's not really a defense), but there are specific locations from the overworld that I can distinctly recall as well as where they're located.

Sameyness being a crime against orienting myself isn't the issue (I don't have problems orienting myself in most anywhere lol).

It's that…what's the point of exploring it? There's nothing to look at. It doesn't have a bit of immersive quality. And there's really nothing much to find except hoping a bush has an old man under it and the odd tree stump hut thing. The Dungeons don't even seem (well most of them) like locations you find so much as random buildings that could be anywhere.

Much of that is limitations of the time, but that doesn't make it not boring. Even the original Metroid (also horribly dated) made much more out of the limitations.
Bless it for pushing boundaries, but this isn't really a sandbox worth digging in.
http://www.vgmaps.com/Atlas/NES/LegendOfZelda-FirstQuest-Hyrule(Unmarked).png
(For those who haven't played, all those caves are these, aside from dungeons)

Whereas I don't feel Link's Awakening and Link to The Past have aged a day in terms of how fun and interactive their overworlds are.
What's more I also played LttP way after the fact myself.

[Demon Rin]

@Monkey:

Much of that is limitations of the time, but that doesn't make it not boring. Even the original Metroid (also horribly dated) made much more out of the limitations.
Bless it for pushing boundaries, but this isn't really a sandbox worth digging in.
http://www.vgmaps.com/Atlas/NES/LegendOfZelda-FirstQuest-Hyrule(Unmarked).png
(For those who haven't played, all those caves are these, aside from dungeons)

Whereas I don't feel Link's Awakening and Link to The Past have aged a day in terms of how fun and interactive their overworlds are.
What's more I also played LttP way after the fact myself.

You should seriously check out the SNES remake based on your objections to it. It doesn't make the game perfect, but it does greatly fix the "Samey" feel the overworld had in the original.

[Monkey King]

@Demon:

You should seriously check out the SNES remake based on your objections to it. It doesn't make the game perfect, but it does greatly fix the "Samey" feel the overworld had in the original.

Eh it prettys it up more, which is good. But that's not everything. Lack of NPC's that aren't in caves is still an issue.

[Nobodyman]

@Monkey:

It's that…what's the point of exploring it? There's nothing to look at. It doesn't have a bit of immersive quality. And there's really nothing much to find except hoping a bush has an old man under it and the odd tree stump hut thing. The Dungeons don't even seem (well most of them) like locations you find so much as random buildings that could be anywhere.

Nah, I think I get what you're saying. A lot of it does just feel sort of plopped in there and a lot of the secrets are nay impossible to find without a guide. But still, I guess I just enjoyed collecting stuff, making my way through the map, fighting off baddies, and finding the dungeons. But I can totally understand why people wouldn't be enthused by this game.

Oh, and I definitely agree that Metroid has aged pretty badly, but I just had to give up on that one because of how tedious it was.

[CCC]

Wow. I was all excited for the first sequelitis in what feels like years but… eh. He really dropped the ball. Shouty argument points sound a whole lot shoutier when they're just not very good points. Praising LoZ1 over the amazing LttP and the not-my-fav-but-still-respectable OoT was just a poorly-executed curveball from nowhere. Like... I know... "subjectivity," but... all my criticisms of OoT have nothing to do with the wacky ones he decided to showcase.

The Mega Man X and Castlevania sequelitises are much better. Actual critiques on game design instead of weird whining. Just saying.

[Monkey King]

It's also really strange to talk those three and leave out Link's Awakening. I get why he left Zelda II out, abberation that it is. But Awakening??

1,3,5. But no 4?