Support NeoGAF

[GiantEnemyGoomba]

Plus the dungeons that are there (which the player actually does spend a decent amount of time in seeing as they're mandatory for beating the game) aren't exactly the most clever, interesting, or unique dungeon-designs from a gameplay perspective...
I guess the "Tower of The Gods" was fun, but riding that boat around it's environment became a bit tedious (like swimming through the annoying currents in the "Great Bay Temple")

Yeah, you unfortunately can tell the game was rushed. It's still really good, just not as good as the series' high standards.

 

[Ceadeus]

I finished ALBW a few weeks ago, and while I enjoyed it, the puzzles were more of a nuisance to me than anything enjoyable. While I felt LTTP dungeons were interesting and well thought out, ALBW dungeons were organized such that I felt like I was just walking along blindly doing various busy puzzles.

Sure, there were a few solid, puzzles, like the Pegasus Boots lair, but most of it was just waiting to get the right item to do the obvious thing. I went on tvtropes to look up game puzzles, and I was amazed by how neatly many of the Zelda puzzles fit in. When I played Alundra a year ago, many puzzles stumped me for several minutes, but ALBW felt obvious and straightforward for the most part.

Recently, we had a thread on GAF where someone said later Zelda titles focus too much on puzzles, and not enough on monsters. Thinking about it, I share that perspective. ALBW had one of the weakest boss sets in the entire franchise history. Even the Tower of Terror was easy. I just never felt challenged or afraid of the foes I was facing.

So I ask you GAF: do the puzzles even matter? Would things be better if the game was focused on the combat mechanics, or something else?

puzzles are part of the essence of This franchise. It needs to stay. It immerse the Player and reminds You You are playing Zelda.

 

[NathanS]

Where is this sentiment that Zelda needs more combat coming from anyways? It feels like something that appeared only recently.

It started with a guy called Malestrom.

 

[Ansatz]

IF anything, given population growth, sales of Zelda are shrinking. And the cultural impact of Zelda is far worse too. The fact that people are even comparing it to Skyrim (and though not in this topic, Dark Souls) shows its decline.

Puzzle Zelda is the road to ruin. Making it a real adventure again and de-emphasizing puzzles is the way to go.

I couldn't live in a world where all AAA games had streamlined gameplay and the central reason to play them was for the screenplay, not the underlying mechanics. Sure I enjoy Xenobade and Uncharted alot but they are side games at best, ultimately I'm left with a sense of hollowness as the credits roll by. The main course is still Mario and Zelda, Bayonetta and Portal. It's only after playing these kinds of games I feel fully satisfied.

 

[Joei]

Zelda has become too puzzle focused. Exploration should be more interesting, dangerous, and rewarding than it is. Environmental navigation and puzzles should be more organic, less artificial. Think Metroid, not Skyward Sword, or A Link to the Past which focuses on item gating and multi-layered areas within areas.

I'm a puzzle game and adventure game fan, games like Layton and Virtue's Last Reward. But when Zelda makes everything a trivial little geometry puzzle it becomes tedious. Worse, it loses that sense of exploration and adventure that the series relies on.

I agree. I don't think every single thing has to be a puzzle to be solved. LTTP had a few in the dungeons, but I think the game had some exploratory elements similar to the first game. 2 had no puzzles and was a fun, albeit unique, take on the series. SS was far too much puzzle solving. To go from A to B, you were on this puzzle solving quest and it seemed to detract from the adventure and exploration of the world for me.

Personally, I like the Zelda games like TP or LTTP. You have your overworld with stuff to do, get to your dungeon, and get through it. Unfortunately, I haven't played ALBW (no 3DS), but I am eager to see how they approached the franchise in that game.

 

[Marow]

Very important, as I find temples (or rather, small sections focused on a single theme) to be the very core of the Zelda experience. What I do think newer Zelda, and the 3D titles in particular, lack when it comes to puzzle design is the "overarching puzzle". In 3D titles, the puzzles rarely extend outside of the room you're in. The same goes with some of the newer 2D titles, such as A Link Between Worlds or Minish Cap to a degree. Naturally, they are better than the 3D titles at this thanks to the perspective (2D allows you to fully perceive each room, easier allowing of these types of puzzles) yet it's not like a title I hold high in this regard:

Link's Awakening.

So many temples in this game had this type of puzzle structuring, forcing you to remember the temple's layout and actually think instead of going through the motions. Eagle's Tower in particular is a great example of this in how it actually challenges previously defined rules (you can walk on raised walls!).

I haven't played the Oracle games, but they seem to share the same type of puzzles as the ones mentioned above. THAT is something I wish to see more of in Zelda games these days.

 

[Magnet_Man]

I preferred the puzzles where things you did in one room affected things on the floor below or above as well as the puzzle being "how do you navigate to such and such location". Link's Awakening, the Oracle games, and LttP did this very well.

Now it's more "hit these clearly marked switches in order because you might as well do SOMETHING in this room" or "Get # of relevant in these other rooms before you can continue" type of puzzles.

 

[jeenaudx]

To me zelda is about the bosses and the items. I couldn't care less about the puzzles , they are way too simplistic.

 

[DNAbro]

Very important, as I find temples (or rather, small sections focused on a single theme) to be the very core of the Zelda experience. What I do think newer Zelda, and the 3D titles in particular, lack when it comes to puzzle design is the "overarching puzzle". In 3D titles, the puzzles rarely extend outside of the room you're in. The same goes with some of the newer 2D titles, such as A Link Between Worlds or Minish Cap to a degree. Naturally, they are better than the 3D titles at this thanks to the perspective (2D allows you to fully perceive each room, easier allowing of these types of puzzles) yet it's not like a title I hold high in this regard:

Link's Awakening.

So many temples in this game had this type of puzzle structuring, forcing you to remember the temple's layout and actually think instead of going through the motions. Eagle's Tower in particular is a great example of this in how it actually challenges previously defined rules (you can walk on raised walls!).

I haven't played the Oracle games, but they seem to share the same type of puzzles as the ones mentioned above. THAT is something I wish to see more of in Zelda games these days.

I know Twilight Princess had the cannonball puzzle in Ice Mansion which was pretty genius. Skyward Sword had the sand ship. I do think an overarching puzzle to a dungeon makes them stand out.

 

[Marow]

I know Twilight Princess had the cannonball puzzle in Ice Mansion which was pretty genius. Skyward Sword had the sand ship. I do think an overarching puzzle to a dungeon makes them stand out.

Indeed, the Sandship in Skyward Sword was fantastic. The best temple in the game in my opinion. I would like to see them follow the same path in the Wii U title.

As for Snowpeak Ruins, on the other hand, I barely remember it. What I do remember is that it was fairly straightforward and dull, but I keep hearing many praise the temple making me doubt my memory. I need to replay it, I guess

 

[DrDrizzay101]

Puzzles, and especially a sense of exploration and discovery, are essential. But I agree that the combat intensity needs to be ramped way up. It's one of the biggest things I miss from the NES games and LttP to a lesser extent. Zelda II in particular has some exhilarating combat, and the 3D titles have never captured this well.

I feel like the opposite of people who want easier modes in Dark Souls. Give me harder Zelda enemies that don't just scale damage like Hero Mode but have more aggressive AI and combat techniques. Combine the skill sets of WW and TP with enemies who actually force you to use more advanced moves.

 

[kunonabi]

To me zelda is about the bosses and the items. I couldn't care less about the puzzles , they are way too simplistic.

and the bosses aren't? For that matter how are the items at all complex or interesting if you strip their puzzle applications away?

Can someone define "adventure" for me? This idea that puzzle solving isn't part of the adventure and somehow replaces it makes no sense to me.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Can someone define "adventure" for me? This idea that puzzle solving isn't part of the adventure and somehow replaces it makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to me as well.
"Adventure" and "exploration" never have any real meaning in these sorts of threads; it always seems like the posters who use those words are using them with a very personal context.
Those two concepts are basically embedded into everything the player does in almost every video game ever (especially video games that generally ask the player to move an avatar around the screen)

 

[Ansatz]

Can someone define "adventure" for me? This idea that puzzle solving isn't part of the adventure and somehow replaces it makes no sense to me.

I can understand the recent Zeldas since they really are just glorified puzzle games.

Take Golden Sun as an example, I wonder what people think of that. I think that game nailed the sense of being on an epic adventure but at the same time had really well designed dungeons and overworld puzzles.

 

[eyeball_kid]

I could care less about puzzles in Zelda. They are a chore and a bore.

But I started with Zelda I and II as a kid. They had some basic push-block moments, but generally they were about running around figuring out what I'd call meta-puzzles -- taking clues given by NPCs and trying to figure out how to access new areas or secrets. No one told you where to go, at least not directly. The focus was exploration, not hitting switches. But the Zeldas after that just got puzzle crazy.

See, to me -- and I think Miyamoto's original inspiration of wandering through forests as a child -- the Zelda concept is about exploration and adventure. You're all alone on a quest. It's kind of dangerous and exciting and mysterious. And battling dangerous creatures -- for instance, Zelda II's combat system was great and wish they'd get back to tighter gameplay like that. In II, you felt like even random encounters were kind of a dangerous (but survivable) event.

So I think modern Zeldas kind of lost that spirit. Wind Waker had a bit of that on the high seas, but the controls were so frustrating that I really didn't want to go out of my way to explore. I get that kids who grew up on the SNES and Gamecube Zelda games think Zelda=puzzles, but I think it's a distraction from what made the OG games so fun.

The reveal of the Wii U footage has me tentatively optimistic that more action and exploration elements might be coming back to Zelda.

edit: I see some people above think the terms "adventure" and "exploration" are generic and don't mean anything, or just nostalgia trigger words. It's the mechanics, setting, and level of handholding which determine whether a game makes those attributes a focus or not. Modern Zelda games focus heavily on puzzles, heavily on making things too obvious. There's no "exploration" per se -- your journey is focused on taking you from one dungeon to the next one. Part of this is a bigger focus on narrative, which I have no problem with per se, but narrative creates structure, and exploration requires the opposite of structured gameplay.

 

[Kai Dracon]

It is sometimes said the puzzles in Zelda should be taken out because they're too easy. Many people seem to feel Zelda should be mostly puzzles, mostly combat, or mostly exploration (overworld, no "handholding"). Inevitably it gets criticized for one of these three areas not being sophisticated enough.

I tend to think the Zelda is strongest when it's a blend of all three in equal portions, and part of that means not overbalancing one of them. The temple puzzles aren't supposed to be Myst stuff - they're there for the flavor of a trap filled dungeon and "Indiana Jones" adventure. The combat meanwhile isn't meant to turn into Dark Souls. It should feel action packed without slowing the game down with too much technical slog. And exploration, after Zelda I, was always about the mood of adventuring, rather than literally being lost.

When the triumvirate is balanced, Zelda turns into an arcadey, breezy adventure that is highly entertaining. This mix is iconic enough that when other games copy Zelda, they strive to balance those three elements. (See: Darksiders 1.) I also kinda suspect this is why the fanbase is fractured into camps that rally around one or two games as the "true soul" of Zelda. Everyone focuses on a few Zeldas that can be used to argue "it's about action", "no, exploration", "no, puzzles and dungeons".

 

[fredrancour]

After playing zelda 1 from start to near-completion off virtual console (currently stuck in death mountain) I am surprised to say that I'd be perfectly fine with puzzles being sidelined in future zeldas. A small handful of quality puzzles to add variety in a game where exploration and combat are the main game mechanics would be a totally acceptable design for a modern zelda to me.

 

[nckillthegrimace]

Puzzles are crucial to Zelda. If I actually wanted to explore or whatever, I can get that from the seemingly endless deluge of open-world games. I can't get Zelda-quality puzzles and dungeons anywhere else. Going off ALBW, I can't even expect the next Zelda to be what I want.

 

[The Llama]

To put it in OOT terms, I'd rather have more deku trees and less water temples. There needs to be some element of puzzleness, but for me it's all about the game play, not solving puzzles.

 

[kunonabi]

To put it in OOT terms, I'd rather have more deku trees and less water temples. There needs to be some element of puzzleness, but for me it's all about the game play, not solving puzzles.

Solving puzzles is gameplay.

 

[Ninjimbo]

We are now at the point where solving puzzles isn't gameplay.

I'm in awe. Zelda threads.

 

[impetuous_silly]

Zelda isn't Zelda without the puzzles. There are plenty of other platformers and action games out there, take your pick.

 

[Brianimaniac]

Environmental puzzles are Zelda to me. I buy a Zelda game when that's what I'm looking for.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

We are now at the point where solving puzzles isn't gameplay.

I'm in awe. Zelda threads.

lol
This fan base is completely ridiculous sometimes (or maybe it's just the small unique pockets inside of it that are crazy)
I guess using item properties to manipulate the environment/enemies around the player so that he/she can conquer a challenge doesn't count as meaningful interaction.

 

[EhoaVash]

I'm indifferent about them. It wouldn't be Zelda.without some puzzle elements. I usually hated obscure shit in the old Zelda games which some thought were "puzzles" lol but I'm liking the current puzzle elements in recent Zelda's, wish they would let me figure it out myself though ...looms.at fi .....

Some puzzle do get annoying though but it is satisfying to finally solve it.

 

[Green Mamba]

Puzzles are important, but I do wish newer Zelda games would have some of their dungeons go back to the maze aspects of the earlier ones. Don't be afraid to confuse the player's sense of direction. I want more "Now where do I go?" not just "What do I do in this room?" Don't drop the second aspect of course, but more emphasis on the previous would be nice. Like, maybe, I don't know, don't be so afraid to give the player access to more than one key and key door at a time?

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

To me zelda is about the bosses and the items. I couldn't care less about the puzzles , they are way too simplistic.

don't Items=puzzles for most of the part?

 

[norealmx]

You mean, if I think the main point of the whole franchise is important?

Yes, they are important.

 

[The Llama]

Solving puzzles is gameplay.

I should have clarified that by gameplay I meant combat.

 

[Makonero]

It is sometimes said the puzzles in Zelda should be taken out because they're too easy. Many people seem to feel Zelda should be mostly puzzles, mostly combat, or mostly exploration (overworld, no "handholding"). Inevitably it gets criticized for one of these three areas not being sophisticated enough.

I tend to think the Zelda is strongest when it's a blend of all three in equal portions, and part of that means not overbalancing one of them. The temple puzzles aren't supposed to be Myst stuff - they're there for the flavor of a trap filled dungeon and "Indiana Jones" adventure. The combat meanwhile isn't meant to turn into Dark Souls. It should feel action packed without slowing the game down with too much technical slog. And exploration, after Zelda I, was always about the mood of adventuring, rather than literally being lost.

When the triumvirate is balanced, Zelda turns into an arcadey, breezy adventure that is highly entertaining. This mix is iconic enough that when other games copy Zelda, they strive to balance those three elements. (See: Darksiders 1.) I also kinda suspect this is why the fanbase is fractured into camps that rally around one or two games as the "true soul" of Zelda. Everyone focuses on a few Zeldas that can be used to argue "it's about action", "no, exploration", "no, puzzles and dungeons".

Well put, my friend. Wisdom, power and courage = puzzles, combat, and exploration.

 

[Karsticles]

Karsticles, if you're looking for a good challenge, you should try the Tower of Terror with the bug net! I couldn't do it, it's super tough....

I don't like self-limiting challenges, usually. I like to see what the full game offers. I understand some people really like this, though.

I could care less about puzzles in Zelda. They are a chore and a bore.

But I started with Zelda I and II as a kid. They had some basic push-block moments, but generally they were about running around figuring out what I'd call meta-puzzles -- taking clues given by NPCs and trying to figure out how to access new areas or secrets. No one told you where to go, at least not directly. The focus was exploration, not hitting switches. But the Zeldas after that just got puzzle crazy.

See, to me -- and I think Miyamoto's original inspiration of wandering through forests as a child -- the Zelda concept is about exploration and adventure. You're all alone on a quest. It's kind of dangerous and exciting and mysterious. And battling dangerous creatures -- for instance, Zelda II's combat system was great and wish they'd get back to tighter gameplay like that. In II, you felt like even random encounters were kind of a dangerous (but survivable) event.

So I think modern Zeldas kind of lost that spirit. Wind Waker had a bit of that on the high seas, but the controls were so frustrating that I really didn't want to go out of my way to explore. I get that kids who grew up on the SNES and Gamecube Zelda games think Zelda=puzzles, but I think it's a distraction from what made the OG games so fun.

The reveal of the Wii U footage has me tentatively optimistic that more action and exploration elements might be coming back to Zelda.

edit: I see some people above think the terms "adventure" and "exploration" are generic and don't mean anything, or just nostalgia trigger words. It's the mechanics, setting, and level of handholding which determine whether a game makes those attributes a focus or not. Modern Zelda games focus heavily on puzzles, heavily on making things too obvious. There's no "exploration" per se -- your journey is focused on taking you from one dungeon to the next one. Part of this is a bigger focus on narrative, which I have no problem with per se, but narrative creates structure, and exploration requires the opposite of structured gameplay.

It is sometimes said the puzzles in Zelda should be taken out because they're too easy. Many people seem to feel Zelda should be mostly puzzles, mostly combat, or mostly exploration (overworld, no "handholding"). Inevitably it gets criticized for one of these three areas not being sophisticated enough.

I tend to think the Zelda is strongest when it's a blend of all three in equal portions, and part of that means not overbalancing one of them. The temple puzzles aren't supposed to be Myst stuff - they're there for the flavor of a trap filled dungeon and "Indiana Jones" adventure. The combat meanwhile isn't meant to turn into Dark Souls. It should feel action packed without slowing the game down with too much technical slog. And exploration, after Zelda I, was always about the mood of adventuring, rather than literally being lost.

When the triumvirate is balanced, Zelda turns into an arcadey, breezy adventure that is highly entertaining. This mix is iconic enough that when other games copy Zelda, they strive to balance those three elements. (See: Darksiders 1.) I also kinda suspect this is why the fanbase is fractured into camps that rally around one or two games as the "true soul" of Zelda. Everyone focuses on a few Zeldas that can be used to argue "it's about action", "no, exploration", "no, puzzles and dungeons".

Well put, my friend. Wisdom, power and courage = puzzles, combat, and exploration.

I just want to say that these three posts really expanded my understanding of what people like about Zelda games. Thank you so much!

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Edit: Nvm

Well put, my friend. Wisdom, power and courage = puzzles, combat, and exploration.

I don't know about exploration...
I agree with Kai Dracon idea that the LoZ franchise is a healthy balance/mix of different elements (puzzle design, obstacle/platform design, enemy encounters, etc.), but I've never been keen on the idea of defining "exploration" as it's own thing that EAD3 has to strive to fine tune.
The player is always going to explore in Zelda games whether the developers want them to or not. EAD can't really avoid designing an LoZ game where the player discovers new areas, uncovers story/world building elements, or finds secrets. That stuff is just sort of naturally embedded in the "universal" design of the franchise (and genre for that matter)
I don't really think EAD3 focuses on that element in a non-passive manner, but I could be wrong.

 

[Lernaean]

Very.
Like, very.

 

[Eric the Red]

Without puzzles, what's the point? It's one of the things that makes Zelda what it is.

With the current mechanics I agree, but that doesn't have to be the case. My opinion is that they need to ease off the puzzles a little bit. This would require expanding the depth of the other mechanics like the combat.

By not having EVERYTHING gated by a "puzzle," it would cut out the simple busy-work type puzzles which are more annoying than clever. By taking this boulder off the designer's shoulders it would also allow them to put all their effort into crafting really memorable puzzles where it counts.

tl;dr
Expand the other mechanics so that the adventure can be punctuated with puzzles, not inundated with them.

 

[eyeball_kid]

^^^^
Err...One post is just sort of agreeing with Kai Dracon's contribution and the other is actively bashing LoZ's puzzle design principles in order to make the archaic, obtuse, and cryptic bs in the pre-ALTTP titles look like some sort of lost art.
I don't understand how you've learned anything about what people like about the puzzle design from eyeball_Kid and Makonero's post.
:/

Karsticles said what people like about "Zelda games", not puzzle design. But I guess you're so obsessed with puzzles that you see them everywhere.

For the record, I wasn't "bashing puzzle design principles", I was saying what I like and don't. I was also saying that complex dungeon puzzles were never a part of the series until later Zelda games, and as such I think they detract from what made the first two so good -- and what made the first two so good is that "seeing what's around the corner" was the primary emotional context. Even the dungeons were more evocative; you felt like you were descending into dangerous, ancient buildings. The newer dungeons feel like set pieces. "Oh I have to figure out a puzzle" has become rote, predictable. Even the overworld exploration in newer games feels like Disney. Too perfect and shiny. You're hardly ever in a panic. You can see the maker's mark everywhere. These qualities are the opposite of entering the unknown.

But my criticisms are exactly why the Wii U Zelda footage excites me, at least in terms of overworld exploration. My immediate reaction to that world was that it feels alive and sprawling. Begging to be explored, but not without real danger afoot. I hope the game lives up to that impression.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

He said what people like about "Zelda games", not puzzle design. But I guess you're so obsessed with puzzles that you see them everywhere.

Ooops...you're right, my bad. lol

Even the dungeons were more evocative; you felt like you were descending into dangerous, ancient buildings..

Meh, the pre-OoT dungeons felt like generic top-down video game levels to me; nothing more nothing less.
They were good forward thinking level designs for the time (that's the key word here), but the newer games' dungeons have completely trounced them in many different aspects (Theming, enemy encounters, puzzle design, obstacle/platform design, etc.)

Edit: Also, I don't agree with your idea that structured games can't have exploration; that just doesn't make any sort of sense to me. It sounds like you're just making up your own rigid definition of "exploration" to validate what you don't like about modern Zelda games.

 

[FreedomFighter]

I love puzzles in Zelda games. It one of the things that make the series special to me. Also, I think people need to understand that the layout in some Zelda dungeons are part of what makes them a huge puzzle. A Link to the Past was like this in terms of having to think in three dimensions... you had to consider what room you were over top of in order to solve some dungeons. Other dungeons that are puzzles in themselves include:

• Eagle's Tower from Link's Awakening (destroying the pillars with the iron ball)
• Forest Temple from Ocarina of Time (not the best example, but the twisty/straightened hallways)
• Snowhead Temple from Majora's Mask (adjusting the central pillar)
• Great Bay Temple from Majora's Mask (manipulating the water current)
• Rockvale Temple from Majora's Mask (the fuckin' dungeon flips upside down, yo)

The problem I have with Zelda standalone puzzles ties into on the biggest criticisms I have with the series lately... the game treats me, a Zelda pro, like a goddamn idiot. I understand being a Zelda newb and all, people have to figure out the game's logic and all... but the devs treat series vets like fucking dumbasses and it is pretty insulting.

I don't need Navi or Fi giving me hints that I didn't ask for which spell out solutions to puzzles. A lot of the puzzles are ruined this way.

Also, the devs give you cop out solutions to puzzles. For example. remember that room in the Forest Temple in Ocarina of time where there is a central pillar in the middle of a moat with a torch on it. Surrounding this pillar are four additional pillars inside the moat that rotate around the central pillar. On the wall, there is a switch which can be activated with the bow but the problem is that the switch is frozen solid and covered in ice. Now, one would eventually figure out that you'd have to have shoot and arrow through the torch and hit the switch that way. But by this point, the player will (SHOULD) already have Din's Fire which ruins the puzzle completely - so no need to even think it though. Same thing with the Anubis puzzles in the Spirit Temple - Din's Fire/Fire Arrows dead the whole thing.

In the end, they need to not be afraid to stump us. I loved getting stuck in Zelda games and eventually figuring things. It's very rewarding.

 

[Redrop]

Zelda is a combination of action, exploration, and puzzles. Without all 3 of those elements it's not a Zelda game.

Action = Triforce of Power
Exploration = Triforce of Courage
Puzzles = Triforce of Wisdom

DUM DUM DUM

Spoiler

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

MM has one of the best puzzles in the series. Stone Temple, man.

 

[dickgumshoe]

I love puzzles in Zelda games. It one of the things that make the series special to me. Also, I think people need to understand that the layout in some Zelda dungeons are part of what makes them a huge puzzle. A Link to the Past was like this in terms of having to think in three dimensions... you had to consider what room you were over top of in order to solve some dungeons. Other dungeons that are puzzles in themselves include:

• Eagle's Tower from Link's Awakening (destroying the pillars with the iron ball)
• Forest Temple from Ocarina of Time (not the best example, but the twisty/straightened hallways)
• Snowhead Temple from Majora's Mask (adjusting the central pillar)
• Great Bay Temple from Majora's Mask (manipulating the water current)
• Rockvale Temple from Majora's Mask (the fuckin' dungeon flips upside down, yo)

The problem I have with Zelda standalone puzzles ties into on the biggest criticisms I have with the series lately... the game treats me, a Zelda pro, like a goddamn idiot. I understand being a Zelda newb and all, people have to figure out the game's logic and all... but the devs treat series vets like fucking dumbasses and it is pretty insulting.

I don't need Navi or Fi giving me hints that I didn't ask for which spell out solutions to puzzles. A lot of the puzzles are ruined this way.

Also, the devs give you cop out solutions to puzzles. For example. remember that room in the Forest Temple in Ocarina of time where there is a central pillar in the middle of a moat with a torch on it. Surrounding this pillar are four additional pillars inside the moat that rotate around the central pillar. On the wall, there is a switch which can be activated with the bow but the problem is that the switch is frozen solid and covered in ice. Now, one would eventually figure out that you'd have to have shoot and arrow through the torch and hit the switch that way. But by this point, the player will (SHOULD) already have Din's Fire which ruins the puzzle completely - so no need to even think it though. Same thing with the Anubis puzzles in the Spirit Temple - Din's Fire/Fire Arrows dead the whole thing.

In the end, they need to not be afraid to stump us. I loved getting stuck in Zelda games and eventually figuring things. It's very rewarding.

This exactly! Every word <3

 

[DrDrizzay101]

MM has one of the best puzzles in the series. Stone Temple, man.

So creepy. So good.

http://youtu.be/wz_NK5HgR6Q

 

[eyeball_kid]

Edit: Also, I don't agree with your idea that structured games can't have exploration; that just doesn't make any sort of sense to me. It sounds like you're just making up your own rigid definition of "exploration" to validate what you don't like about modern Zelda games.

Hmm, well I'm definitely "making it up" because this is the first time I've really thought about why I prefer the original Zelda games, so if I'm not being clear in my expressing my ruminations then I apologize, but I think what I've said so far resonates with the way the old games make me feel vis a vis my experiences with the newer Zeldas. We'll have to just disagree about structure vs. exploration. In my mind they are competing design goals, and there is a balance that each game strikes. That balance is pushed farther towards structure in the later Zeldas.

I'm not expecting you to change your mind about this or about what you want from a Zelda title, as you similarly won't sway my preferences. But it's good to have the discussion.

 

[Yoshi]

The essential gameplay element of my second favourite game series, a series I care for only because of its gameplay. No puzzles, no buy.

 

[Shaanyboi]

They are pretty key to the experience. Zelda with minimized or no puzzles sounds completely pointless. Posts saying "Zelda should be action-oriented" sound like fucking nonsense.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Hmm, well I'm definitely "making it up" because this is the first time I've really thought about why I prefer the original Zelda games, so if I'm not being clear in my expressing my ruminations then I apologize, but I think what I've said so far resonates with the way the old games make me feel vis a vis my experiences with the newer Zeldas. We'll have to just disagree about structure vs. exploration. In my mind they are competing design goals, and there is a balance that each game strikes. That balance is pushed farther towards structure in the later Zeldas.

I'm not expecting you to change your mind about this or about what you want from a Zelda title, as you similarly won't sway my preferences. But it's good to have the discussion.

Alright, I generally like debating about the relationship between exploration and structure (or even the very idea of "video game exploration" itself) but I'm willing to back off if you don't feel that anything good will come from such a discussion.

 

[Myriadis]

It looks like that the general consensus is that puzzles are important for the Zelda franchise. These who don't them in even say outright that they want another skyrim.

 

[Earthpainting]

As others have said, they are one of the biggest reasons why I play the series. The series treats its item implementations, enemy encounters and dungeon progression in a similar fashion. Like a puzzle. Items and equipment are often at the centre of this as well. These Items you find have almost guaranteed multiple uses in combat, traversal and traditional puzzles. This gives the whole thing a nice cohesive feel. I believe this type of design was pushed to the forefront because of Link's Awakening's lack of buttons. Since your sword was no longer a mandatory part of your active equipment, they could explore their design beyond cutting dudes and walking into blocks to push them.

 

[Thorakai]

about as important as a jump button in Mario I imagine.

 

[Sami+]

I don't care about them either way. If they're in I want then to be fun, if not it's no skin off my back.

That said I dislike the greater focus they've been getting in the more recent games. I don't think everything should be a puzzle, and I don't think combat should take a backseat.

My "dream Zelda" is pretty much Dark Souls with a few fundamental changes. Slightly less complex mechanics, more open exploration with a bigger map, and very "natural" puzzles like those of Shadow of the Colossus.

My dream Zelda would not have a short cutscene with a jingle that shows a door open when I push a button.

 

[Nickle]

It is a huge aspect of the series, but when "puzzles" turn into "obstacle courses", then I start to question how much I really care about them. If I know exactly what to do when I enter a room, then it is an obstacle course, not a puzzle.