Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

They're the defining element of the series to me. Other games have explored similar combat or exploration styles, but Zelda's specific brand of vast, limited-tool, often environmental puzzles that depend on well defined interactions
(As opposed to most adventure games) is so characteristic that its hard to think of any other games that do it that aren't just called Zelda clones.

Maybe the Myst games. Which is probably why I love them both

 

[Mael]

You probably also wanted an explanation on how the ninjas kidnapped the president and how the bad dudes became bad enough dudes. Sometimes the answer is simple: it's a videogame.

You can't have it both ways, if the game had very simple presentation and limited story, yeah it gets a pass.
Hence why the temple inside the belly of the catfish in LA gets a pass for example (even then it was coherent with the whole game being a dream etc).
Here the game try to very seriously tell you that this is important and that you need to pass this ordeal to get the secret macguffin, they paid attention to the presentation so that we would know that it was to be taken at face value.
It falls flat on its face however.
If i see something as egregious as this in WatchDogs you can be sure that you'll hear me about it for years.

 

[Anth0ny]

They are important, but not the most important aspect of a Zelda game.

To me, that would be exploration.

 

[zruben]

Are my eyes broke? Am I really seeing this? Someone that actually liked it?

frans 4 life

most of the people who hate Skyward Sword didn't play Skyward Sword.

 

[Toski]

IMO, Nintendo needs to split the franchise somehow. Puzzles & dungeons being the focus of a Zelda game bore me. The harder and more convoluted the puzzle & dungeon, the less I will play the game. I preferred OoS over OoA due to the focus on action.

The problem of Zelda being a "Jack of All Trades" franchise is that people will eventually prefer certain trades over others. I want more Zelda games like MM and less like SS or OoA.

 

[Neidii]

I don't care much about the puzzles, but I think they're okay and since they've always been a part of Zelda games it would feel weird if they wouldn't be there anymore. I don't like difficult puzzles though, I'm more into the combat and story. I'd love it if Zelda games evolved their combat more in some way to make it more interesting.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Puzzles really slow down the game play and make Zelda feel really dated so it would be great to me to tone them down some and up the action RPG elements.


Edit: I fear Nintendo turning their long running action games into linear puzzle games.

 

[Hibiki Kurosawa]

Puzzles are mandatory. Possibly the number one reason I play and love the Zelda games.

 

[TitusGroan]

IMO, Nintendo needs to split the franchise somehow. Puzzles & dungeons being the focus of a Zelda game bore me. The harder and more convoluted the puzzle & dungeon, the less I will play the game. I preferred OoS over OoA due to the focus on action.

The problem of Zelda being a "Jack of All Trades" franchise is that people will eventually prefer certain trades over others. I want more Zelda games like MM and less like SS or OoA.

Wasn't Majora's Mask structured almost entirely around it's puzzles, compared to the combat and exploration of Ocarina? I mean, the 3 Day mechanic was almost a puzzle in itself, and that was the game's main new addition to the franchise.

 

[Ooccoo]

Zelda without puzzles is Hyrule Warriors

 

[Mael]

Wasn't Majora's Mask structured almost entirely around it's puzzles, compared to the combat and exploration of Ocarina? I mean, the 3 Day mechanic was almost a puzzle in itself, and that was the game's main new addition to the franchise.

Yep but it's like Zelda 1 compared to Skyward Sword.

Zelda without puzzles is Hyrule Warriors

And that's certainly looking better than anything they did with WW.
Let's not act like HW is the 1rst spinoff that's not like your usual Zelda game either.

 

[Currygan]

Are my eyes broke? Am I really seeing this? Someone that actually liked it?

frans 4 life

wtf man, I been saying SS is my GOTG for ages. You just clearly ignored my posts

no friends for life

 

[orborborb]

I would be very happy with another Zelda I&II style game that made every single enemy encounter not just a challenge, but a challenge with long term consequences. Getting hit once by a weak enemy on the overworld should actually change how far you could get into a dungeon later on.

But if you're not going to do that, then puzzles and puzzle-bosses are all it's got left as far as engaging gameplay.

 

[icy_eagle]

A lot of zelda puzzle really stretch the meaning of the word 'puzzle', and I could certainly do with less of those. I'm talking about stuff like obviously bombable cracks, killing every critter in a room so that a chest materializes out of thin air (what?), linearly pushing a block into a hole to open a door or whatever. More of stuff like sacred grove statue & snowpeak ice block puzzles, less of blockade X = Action or Item Y.

 

[Pociask]

You probably also wanted an explanation on how the ninjas kidnapped the president and how the bad dudes became bad enough dudes. Sometimes the answer is simple: it's a videogame.

So why put so much effort into presentation and storytelling? Why all the extended cut scenes? Why all the cinematic-like posing and sword twirling by Link? Why all the convuluted explanations for what Link must do next ("Oh, here's this crazy flower, it's your spirit vessel, you have to fill it up to prove your worth by doing this spirt quest, blah blah blah blah blah")?

It's a video game that tells a story. It's not Mario, for example, where the story is just the bare minimum window dressing. It's the Legend - that is, epic story - of Zelda. If it's bad at what it attempts to do, it doesn't get a pass because it's a video game, anymore than the Transformer movies get a pass because they're summer blockbusters. The developers are clearly trying to tell a good story. By any standard other than "video games have always had terrible stories so I expect terrible and will be happy if it rises to mediocre," SS was not a good story. That's important to me, in the same way that figuring out how to get to a switch to unlock a door is important to other players.

Edit: Beaten

 

[decoyplatypus]

They're very important to me. Puzzles have been the core feature of Zelda dungeons for twenty years. They're one of two or three primary sources of challenge and fun in the games. The dearth of satisfying puzzles in Wind Waker soured some of the game's artistic accomplishments, and the bounty of puzzles in Twilight Princess made up for some of that game's weaknesses. Of course, it is theoretically possible to replace puzzles with some other feature to engage and draw the player through the world. For example, Nintendo could turn the dungeons into pure mazes and/or intensify the combat to make surviving the dungeons--rather than solving their riddles--the key challenge (see AoL). But I would be less interested in that version of Zelda because I like puzzles and there are other series that do mazes and combat well. It is also possible to reduce the role of set piece puzzles in favor of more exploration-based challenges ("Where do I go next?"). I think this would be pretty dreary if it didn't involve mental challenges akin to puzzles. I have zero interest, for example, in a Zelda overworld that functions like SotC's. But I can imagine a Zelda game where you're doing a lot more detective work in and among NPCs before you reach puzzle-less dungeons. Of course, this would also require Nintendo to abandon an area of strength (dungeon design) for an area at which it is under-practiced. The better move would be to keep the relative proportions of puzzles, exploration, and combat but ask how each of the three could be improved without upsetting their balance.

 

[BGBW]

You can't have it both ways, if the game had very simple presentation and limited story, yeah it gets a pass.
Hence why the temple inside the belly of the catfish in LA gets a pass for example (even then it was coherent with the whole game being a dream etc).
Here the game try to very seriously tell you that this is important and that you need to pass this ordeal to get the secret macguffin, they paid attention to the presentation so that we would know that it was to be taken at face value.
It falls flat on its face however.
If i see something as egregious as this in WatchDogs you can be sure that you'll hear me about it for years.

I think I can very easily seeing as I had it with Skyward Sword. I enjoyed the story and I didn't concern myself over something as trivial as why there are enemies in a dungeon.

You'll never convince me that a Zelda game needs to give me an explanation for dungeon monsters because quite frankly the concept is beyond daft.

 

[3bdelilah]

Definitely a very important aspect gameplay wise, if they took that away I honestly don't think there'd be too much to love the Zelda series. The stories are usually, unfortunately, subject to the gameplay and exploration isn't ridiculously high too.

At this moment the priorities for me should be:

1) dungeons (the overall gameplay; puzzles, boss battles etc.)
2) exploration
3) story


I'd like them too bump up the story. Despite Skyward Sword not being my favourite Zelda, it still had one of the "best" (due to the lack of better) stories of the series. And I honestly don't think exploration was all that high, at least not in the 3D ones, since most areas would be shut off until you've reached a point, e.g. when you got an item you could use to progress.

But Zelda U looks to be very heavy on the exploration aspect, which is wonderful news. And assuming gameplay wise it's as excellent as ever, this is going to be a very nice game. But I'm afraid the story would be very thin (like ALBW or even thinner), if not almost non-existent. In a perfect world they know how to balance these three aspects, but I'm not sure if they even want that. If I recall correctly, I even think I saw an article a few months back that they wanted "to focus more on the gameplay with the Zelda series".




Edit: and just to be sure, Nintendo's not going to have a conference this Gamescom, right? Are they going to have a Direct or something, and if so, when exactly?

 

[maxcriden]

Edit: and just to be sure, Nintendo's not going to have a conference this Gamescom, right? Are they going to have a Direct or something, and if so, when exactly?

No conference. No Direct has been announced yet, but I suspect if we don't get one this week, we will by the end of this month.

 

[3bdelilah]

No conference. No Direct has been announced yet, but I suspect if we don't get one this week, we will by the end of this month.

Ahh that sucks, you'd think they'd do it this week, when the Gamescom hype is pretty high. But thanks!

 

[SoaringDive]

Other than Majora's Mask, the series has had pretty lackluster puzzles IMO. Especially with the 3D ones, there's more trial and error than actual thinking about the puzzle (ie. Portal). I wouldn't mind ditching puzzles, they're probably the low part of the franchise for me.

 

[maxcriden]

Ahh that sucks, you'd think they'd do it this week, when the Gamescom hype is pretty high. But thanks!

They still could. Fingers crossed!

 

[Dr.Hadji]

Other than Majora's Mask, the series has had pretty lackluster puzzles IMO. Especially with the 3D ones, there's more trial and error than actual thinking about the puzzle (ie. Portal). I wouldn't mind ditching puzzles, they're probably the low part of the franchise for me.

Hate I break it to you man but that trail and error is on you and not the game. The fact that you feel that you needed to resort to that method kind of speaks volumes. It is interesting that you responded to MM's puzzles so differently though. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any fundamental changes in its puzzles that would make you perceive them so differently.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Other than Majora's Mask, the series has had pretty lackluster puzzles IMO.

Majora's Mask is often lauded for having the most interesting investigative non-environmental puzzles (The Anju & Kafei side-quest, and Romani's side-quest immediately come to mind) and rightfully so as far as I'm concerned. It also has some of strongest theming, and narrative elements in the franchise's history.
However, it's dungeon design leaves a lot to be desired; it also doesn't help that there are only four of them (which means the weaker dungeons stand out way more than they would in a game with 8 or 9 dungeons)

Woodfall suffers from being incredibly basic, and making use of the most uninteresting mask in the game (They really couldn't think of anything more interesting than hovering towards static platforms??)
The best thing Snowhead has going for it is the Goron Mask's rolling ability (dat game feel) and Ghot.
Great Bay...is just frustrating to navigate and manipulate. It also has surprisingly simple puzzle design for such a confusing layout. Also, Gyorg is the worst.

I know we all have different opinions, but it's hard for me to comprehend why anyone would put that game's puzzle design over OoT's, TP's, SS's, or even some of the post-2000s portable games' puzzle design. Puzzles and obstacle/platform design wasn't really that game's strong suit.

Edit: It's mostly remembered for it's thematic elements, story elements, and investigative puzzles/side-quest.

 

[Mael]

I think I can very easily seeing as I had it with Skyward Sword. I enjoyed the story and I didn't concern myself over something as trivial as why there are enemies in a dungeon.

You'll never convince me that a Zelda game needs to give me an explanation for dungeon monsters because quite frankly the concept is beyond daft.

the concept of dungeon without monsters is actually way less daft than the thing we got with that dungeon.
Again as Pociask put it, if they present the story in such a way that it needs to be taken seriously at least don't put stuffs that is so stupid it makes no sense in the context of the game.
Really there's plenty of stuffs that don't make sense but really for this one there's not even a stretch you could make other than put your hand in the air and say "well it's a video game, it's supposed to suck"

Edit: It's mostly remembered for it's thematic elements, story elements, and investigative puzzles/side-quest.

The investigative side-quests are so much better than the shitty puzzles we got in the subsequent Zelda it's not even funny.
Heck even the "puzzles" you get at the end of the married couple sidequest is more interesting than everything they threw at us in SS (let alone WW, my god what a PoS that was).

 

[toastyToast]

Without the puzzles Zelda's just an action game and the are better action games.

 

[TitusGroan]

the concept of dungeon without monsters is actually way less daft than the thing we got with that dungeon.
Again as Pociask put it, if they present the story in such a way that it needs to be taken seriously at least don't put stuffs that is so stupid it makes no sense in the context of the game.
Really there's plenty of stuffs that don't make sense but really for this one there's not even a stretch you could make other than put your hand in the air and say "well it's a video game, it's supposed to suck"

Only if you think fighting enemies in a dungeon sucks. I do not, especially not with Skyward Sword's lovely controls. "Oh, another enemy for me to fight. What a shame they didn't set the context up properly, because my enjoyment of this fight is totally nullified by the lack of exposition setting it up."

The investigative side-quests are so much better than the shitty puzzles we got in the subsequent Zelda it's not even funny.
Heck even the "puzzles" you get at the end of the married couple sidequest is more interesting than everything they threw at us in SS (let alone WW, my god what a PoS that was).

Married people sidequest better than the Timeskip Stones?

...

... Ha! Thanks for that. I needed something to laugh about today.

 

[Mael]

Only if you think fighting enemies in a dungeon sucks. I do not, especially not with Skyward Sword's lovely controls. "Oh, another enemy for me to fight. What a shame they didn't set the context up properly, because my enjoyment of this fight is totally nullified by the lack of exposition setting it up."

If you have no standard for the games you play that's your issue.

Married people sidequest better than the Timeskip Stones?

...

... Ha! Thanks for that. I needed something to laugh about today.

Anju & Kafei sidequest was indeed miles better, it didn't involve shitty enemy design after all.

 

[TitusGroan]

If you have no standard for the games you play that's your issue.

The standards I have for games are based on gameplay. Ninja Gaiden Black used to throw enemies at you from out of nowhere, no matter how bizarre or distant the location. Still one of the greatest action games ever. I'm not going to criticise that game for putting enemies in a cave with no explanation, and I'm not going to do the same for Zelda either. The gameplay is all that matters.

Anju & Kafei sidequest was indeed miles better, it didn't involve shitty enemy design after all.

Nor did it involve an ingenious game mechanic that in any other franchise would have been used as the basis for an entire game. But hey ho. You're making your feelings on SS quite clear, and it just means I feel justified in disagreeing with you outright and leaving it at that. Anyone who uses the Timeskip Stones as an example of bad puzzle design is someone who's mindset I'm going to have trouble comprehending.

 

[Mael]

The standards I have for games are based on gameplay. Ninja Gaiden Black used to throw enemies at you from out of nowhere, no matter how bizarre or distant the location. Still one of the greatest action games ever. I'm not going to criticise that game for putting enemies in a cave with no explanation, and I'm not going to do the same for Zelda either. The gameplay is all that matters.

Again does it make sense in the context of the game?
In Ninja Gaiden, a game about a ninja kicking foes in the face it's totally expected to be in a city full of assassins ready to kick your face.
What you don't expect is Ryu going to the bathroom in the white house and it turns out the white house is full of ninjas ready to kick your ass not because the white house is under attach but because they just happen to live there.
Zelda is the same way, you get to explore dungeons in the most bizarre locations. It can be inside an abandoned house, a mine, a lost temple, a tower overrun by the darkness.
What it can't be is a train station or just the most holy place in the land that just happen to be full of monsters just because.

Nor did it involve an ingenious game mechanic that in any other franchise would have been used as the basis for an entire game. But hey ho. You're making your feelings on SS quite clear, and it just means I feel justified in disagreeing with you outright and leaving it at that. Anyone who uses the Timeskip Stones as an example of bad puzzle design is someone who's mindset I'm going to have trouble comprehending.

The Timeskip stones is the perfect example of good idea/bad execution.
The idea is incredibly cool....but it mostly used to gate Link in smallish rooms.
Every time the only thing you have to do is activate the crystal to advance and that's about it.
It's only a good puzzle in the context of this game.
It's barely a puzzle, Layton would give the middle finger before wasting his time on this.

 

[BGBW]

The only thing you have to do with a puzzle is complete it to advance. What a waste!

 

[Mael]

The only thing you have to do with a puzzle is complete it to advance. What a waste!

There's a difference between a puzzle where you're in an area and seeking how to progress and the shit we get in Zelda games now that are "you're in a small room, solve this braindead puzzle or stay in this room forever"

 

[AJ_Wings]

Without the puzzles Zelda's just an action game and the are better action games.

Good way to sum it up, although I'd still like to see them iterating (which they will most certainly do) on the combat from Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword.

 

[Platy]

Puzzles are way more important than Link's genitals

 

[Nickle]

Puzzles are very important, but too many of them can really bog the experience down. Dungeons should be packed with puzzles, and figuring out what to do between dungeons should be a puzzle itself. However, the overworld suffers greatly when it is packed with too many environmental puzzles, and that was one of Skyward Sword's biggest problems. The entire surface world felt like a theme park instead of a living, breathing world, and that is a terrible thing for any 3D Zelda game. The Surface World of SS sacrificed towns, NPC'S, openness, interconnectivity, and believability, all so that it could jam more puzzles into the game. It definitely wasn't worth it.
Thankfully, the new Zelda looks like it will abandon using tons of environmental puzzles in favor of having more exploration, discovery, and NPC interaction, so that's something to get excited about.