PokéKong;34289686 said:
I'd recommend it to the type of person who likes game from Treasure, who can admire oldschool games for their well crafted mechanics and super tight controls, but not to the average Zelda fan who admires OoT and MM and WW for their cute characters and personality and little mini stories scattered throughout.
I don't think there is such a thing as an "average Zelda fan"; lots of people like the series for different reasons, and Nintendo is often tasked with appealing to different subsets of their fanbase with each new game, while trying to make each game fresh and exciting. Rather than overhaul every area of the game with each new title, they focus on one or two aspects of the "formula", change those, and refine everything else.
Some examples:
- Majora's Mask focused on improving world development and side-quests. Ocarina never gave you a huge reason to care about the world you're saving, and most of the stuff outside of the main quest is clinically dry.
- Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are two radically different aesthetic interpretations of the series and probably gave rise to the term "Zelda formula", as neither of the two play around with core mechanics much. Wind Waker takes its aesthetic cues from story books and illustration, while Twilight Princess looks more to high fantasy for inspiration.
- Skyward Sword is a very mechanically-minded game. It aims to resolve a lot of lingering problems with the existing "formula" (item glut, poor rupee economy, wasted space, ease of combat) while accommodating a completely new control scheme.
By comparison, the handheld games improve more incrementally, adhering to a much more rigid formula, but are brought under less scrutiny.
The main problem the Zelda series suffers is the long turnaround time for each new game. By the time a new game is released, Nintendo is forced to accommodate those who would be experiencing the series for the very first time. Since the game comprises many different "tasks" (combat, puzzle-solving, exploration), Nintendo has to dilute each for the lowest common denominator. (Unlike the Mario series, which is much more straight-forward, and has a greater degree of leniency in its difficult curve.) If Nintendo were able to repurpose an existing game engine (as they did with Majora's Mask, the Oracle games, and Spirit Tracks) to release two similar Zelda games for each new console generation, the first could be the more sanitary and approachable title, while the second could be more difficult, more divisive, and more experimental. Nintendo could, in effect, spend more time building the
game than the tech.
Odds are, if we see anything of this nature manifest itself, it won't be until near the end of the Wii U's lifespan. The Wii is done, and the visual bar has already been set high for the next Zelda title.