Support NeoGAF

[Lunar15]

Now you're speaking my language.

Although I'd say as far as character interaction goes, they've all been maintaining par outside of MM.

Except for TP. Those characters were all pretty bad outside of Midna. A lot of weird missed potential there. Characters that could have been interesting but then were never really used.

SS was a bit more of a return to form in just that characters were really quirky and you ran into them a lot, but I'd still say it's down a bit from say, MM. Then again, it could just be nostalgia glasses.

 

[Heroman]

I don't think the character in MM are any better than any other zelda game , it was just the way MM way design .

 

[Lunar15]

I don't think the character in MM are any better than any other zelda game , it was just the way MM way design .

I was going to say something to this effect. Gameplay dictated that you spent more time with them than the average Zelda NPC.

Honestly, I think TMC had some pretty interesting side characters, and Hyrule Town was used in a lot of cool ways.

 

[zeldablue]

Zeldablue, with all due respect, I read your posts and sometimes think that you're just a burnt out fan. Like there was a time where this series seemed magical to you but you slowly just grew out of it and things that you were cool with previously weren't going to cut it. Because most of these criticisms and concerns seem awfully selectively applied.

I think I can be a critical fan and still enjoy the series. TMC and SS were a big miss for me. I really enjoyed ALBWs and TP before that. Hyrule Warriors was fun too. Certain Zeldas just can't get away with things for me.

I don't think the character in MM are any better than any other zelda game , it was just the way MM way design .

They had story arcs that you could manipulate multiple times. The only thing as interesting as that was the time skip in OoT changing the role/perception of characters.

 

[Heroman]

Feels like the most barebones plot you can make for a Zelda game. If they invest all this time in making a unique world and then start off with "save Zelda" I'm going to be really mad.



Lol...someone actually on topic.

By making zelda a character rather than some person that you save for reason is bare bones?

 

[Gsnap]

Bad scenario writing. Villian wears purple and is generically evil because his main motive in life is to be evil.

That kind of stuff.

Sounds like Majora's Mask. : p

(I get what you're saying, but I think you're going overboard with it)

 

[Dimmle]

Except for TP. Those characters were all pretty bad outside of Midna. A lot of weird missed potential there. Characters that could have been interesting but then were never really used.

SS was a bit more of a return to form in just that characters were really quirky and you ran into them a lot, but I'd still say it's down a bit from say, MM. Then again, it could just be nostalgia glasses.

I was going to say something to this effect. Gameplay dictated that you spent more time with them than the average Zelda NPC.

Honestly, I think TMC had some pretty interesting side characters, and Hyrule Town was used in a lot of cool ways.

Yeah, I think "interaction" is the key word here, not necessarily character design or strength of writing. MM had a very powerful scenario that called for more depth/volume to the characters. I would probably say that OoT, MM, LA, the Oracles, MC, SS, and especially Wind Waker each have excellent "trademark" examples of NPC interaction.

And of course we owe it all to the trading quest.

 

[zeldablue]

Sounds like Majora's Mask. : p

Ah, but he's the result of neglect/abandonment/social isolation. That's something. Ganondorf is the result of envy. You get it...there was something human about the villain.

By making zelda a character rather than some person that you save for reason is bare bones?

She's not there for the gameplay. She's not really there at all. I think it's really bad when they center the game around a character who doesn't really matter. :\

If you want her to matter, then make her matter, like in Spirit Tracks. Have her actually be there. If she has to get her stupid butt kidnapped then put in another character who is actually interesting. Like Midna or Linebeck.

 

[Lunar15]

Yeah, I think "interaction" is the key word here, not necessarily character design or strength of writing. MM had a very powerful scenario that called for more depth/volume to the characters. I would probably say that OoT, MM, LA, the Oracles, MC, SS, and especially Wind Waker each have excellent "trademark" examples of NPC interaction.

And of course we owe it all to the trading quest.

I don't know if I'd count OOT. Outside of the main cast and maybe Malon, side characters weren't that interesting or well used at all. I say swap that out with TWW, which had generally enjoyable side characters.

But it's way too early to really start talking about this stuff in relation to the new game. We don't even know if Fujibaysahi is directing this time, just that he's probably the director.

 

[Astral Dog]

Generic plot involving Zelda being your preppy best friend who is immediately kidnapped after you have a swell time with her...and then her disappearing for the rest of the game as you set out to save her. Oh and nothing else in the story is more important than saving this character who had 10 minutes of screen time.

Bad scenario writing. Villian wears purple and is generically evil because his main motive in life is to be evil.

That kind of stuff.

Yeah, they need to work something out.

But honestly. it was not worse than Twilight Princess, or other Zeldas.

The last Zelda were i liked the story was Wind Waker, and that had more or less the same premise.They can create interesting settings, but they always forget about the characters,

Edit: also, all Zelda villains are evil to be evil, except Vaati on MC and Ganondorf on WW.

 

[TheMoon]

Because every game they promise that we'll get something that exceeds Ocarina of Time/A Link to the Past/The Legend of Zelda in terms of exploration/gameplay/quality, but with every game we usually get one step forward, ten steps back.

After about the fifth time, people are starting to decide they won't be fooled.

That has little to do with that I was discussing there. I addressed the fear of them or specifically Fujibayashi repeating the exact things certain people hated in SS.

Generic plot involving Zelda being your preppy best friend who is immediately kidnapped after you have a swell time with her...and then her disappearing for the rest of the game as you set out to save her. Oh and nothing else in the story is more important than saving this character who had 10 minutes of screen time.

Bad scenario writing. Villian wears purple and is generically evil because his main motive in life is to be evil.

That kind of stuff.

Then you might want to talk about the writer, which was a different guy, not just the director (Fujibayashi just wrote the outline).

 

[LegendofLex]

That has little to do with that I was discussing there. I addressed the fear of them or specifically Fujibayashi repeating the exact things certain people hated in SS.

I don't see why it has little to do with what we're discussing here. Literally the first thing that we heard about this game was that they were looking at Zelda 1 for inspiration for the open world structure. And Fujibayashi's track record shows that the only Zeldas he knows how to make are linear/sidequest-driven ones, with SS being a particularly heinous example with its "sidequests-integrated-in-the-main-quest instead of open-ended exploration" bullshit - which, by the way, no one ever asked for.

SS was a pretty dramatic bait-and-switch, with a completely open-ended reveal demo, only to find out that what seemed to be a fairly open area (Faron Woods) would wind up being a hub for mandatory fetch quests in the final game (Kikwis, Silent Realm, Tadtones). And that was a continuation of the Twilight Princess tradition of having a rather large area to explore but inevitably only having one direction in which it's actually meaningful to go.

People are right to be skeptical when they see what looks like an open world, since Nintendo hasn't demonstrated that they know how to do a non-island-based one in 3D yet.

I don't know if I'd count OOT. Outside of the main cast and maybe Malon, side characters weren't that interesting or well used at all.

Most of them were at least interesting enough to get picked up again in Majora's Mask, usually with very similar personalities. I'd say the vast majority of players can probably identify/remember more side characters from OoT than from TWW (or TP or SS).

 

[Dimmle]

I don't know if I'd count OOT. Outside of the main cast and maybe Malon, side characters weren't that interesting or well used at all. I say swap that out with TWW, which had generally enjoyable side characters.

I agree Wind Waker has outstanding NPCs. OoT was pretty alright, though: you've got sell-something-with-C guy, Happy Mask Salesman, sad blue forest man who hates himself, the soft-bellied carpenters and their hard-ass boss, game corner girl who hates her job, weird running guy, pot-smashing soldier who potentially becomes poe obsessed wraith... OoT had a lot of fun and interesting ideas for NPCs.

fuckin' Twinrova

 

[zeldablue]

I agree Wind Waker has outstanding NPCs. OoT was pretty alright, though: you've got sell-something-with-C guy, Happy Mask Salesman, sad blue forest man who hates himself, the soft-bellied carpenters and their hard-ass boss, game corner girl who hates her job, weird running guy, pot-smashing soldier who potentially becomes poe obsessed wraith... OoT had a lot of fun and interesting ideas for NPCs.

fuckin' Twinrova

OoT always wins for most memorable. The sages and all the strange/goofball characters are pretty unforgettable.

If not for story, then at least character design. Also, "punk guy" is up there with fluteboy for me.

 

[Lunar15]

Actually, I'd have to say that Ghirahim was one of the more interesting villains in the series. Sure you could just say that Demise was the main villain, but Ghirahim was the main force of antagonism throughout the game. Weird, goofy, unsettling, but also pretty violent in dialogue. He took on a good "rival" role that the series hadn't really had up until that point.

Sure, he gets trumped at the end by Demise, but it felt pretty organic to me unlike say, Zant, because it was always clear he was working for Demise from the very beginning. He also had a presence in the story from the first dungeon on, unlike other Zelda antagonists who don't really feel like they're there until the final act.

Also a good villian: Veran, for pretty much the same reasons as above. A little more presence throughout the plot is welcome.

 

[Asbear]

Actually, I'd have to say that Ghirahim was one of the more interesting villains in the series. Sure you could just say that Demise was the main villain, but Ghirahim was the main force of antagonism throughout the game. Weird, goofy, unsettling, but also pretty violent in dialogue. He took on a good "rival" role that the series hadn't really had up until that point.

Sure, he gets trumped at the end by Demise, but it felt pretty organic to me, unlike say, Zant, because it was always clear he was working for Demise from the very beginning. He also had a presence in the story from the first dungeon on, unlike other Zelda antagonists who don't really feel like they're there until the final act.

I liked Girahim because of how his character was implemented multiple times within the gameplay and middle-sections of the story but if you look at his character outside of that there's nothing deep about him. His writing sounds pretty crazy and twisted but its' all just looks and style but no substance because it really only boils down to "I serve my Genie master who is pure evil because he's pure evil". His behavior was memorable but his character wasn't.

 

[zeldablue]

Actually, I'd have to say that Ghirahim was one of the more interesting villains in the series. Sure you could just say that Demise was the main villain, but Ghirahim was the main force of antagonism throughout the game. Weird, goofy, unsettling, but also pretty violent in dialogue. He took on a good "rival" role that the series hadn't really had up until that point.

Sure, he gets trumped at the end by Demise, but it felt pretty organic to me, unlike say, Zant, because it was always clear he was working for Demise from the very beginning.

Eh...I didn't like his motive. It's the same as Agahmin and Zant. Except Zant was also a wuss who was really jealous and stuff. And his connection to Midna was interesting. (Now that I think about it...if he had ties with Fi, that would have been pretty cool.)

I like villains who are more human. Like Ganondorf in TWW, or Skull kid or even

Spoiler

Hilda.

If the bad guy is just a straight up evil dude doing evil things, it feels pretty lame for me. It's not relatable. Like Ganondorf in TP. I don't want that again. When I say generic I mean that feeling you get when you realize the bad guy is bad because he's just bad.

 

[Lunar15]

I liked Girahim because of how his character was implemented multiple times within the gameplay and middle-sections of the story but if you look at his character outside of that there's nothing deep about him. His writing sounds pretty crazy and twisted but its' all just looks and style but no substance because it really only boils down to "I serve my Genie master who is pure evil because he's pure evil". His behavior was memorable but his character wasn't.

Compared to villians in other games, I don't disagree. Compared to Zelda games? Pretty good, merely due to the fact that he has presence. Nothing really compares to Skull Kid in terms of motivation, though.

I've always found that citing Ganondorf from TWW is really weird because he really is just evil for the sake of being evil except for literally one line where he says "I was jealous once". I mean, I get it, some motivation is better than none... but that's really really pushing it.

 

[Dimmle]

OoT always wins for most memorable. The sages and all the strange/goofball characters are pretty unforgettable.

If not for story, then at least character design. Also, "punk guy" is up there with fluteboy for me.

I agree. "Memorable" is such a subjective qualifier, though. It really just depends on what you played from 8-12.

Veran is a super cool villain. Her presence permeates the entire game. And I like Ghirahim. He nasty.

 

[TheMoon]

I don't see why it has little to do with what we're discussing here. Literally the first thing that we heard about this game was that they were looking at Zelda 1 for inspiration for the open world structure. And Fujibayashi's track record shows that the only Zeldas he knows how to make are linear/sidequest-driven ones, with SS being a particularly heinous example with its "sidequests-integrated-in-the-main-quest instead of open-ended exploration" bullshit - which, by the way, no one ever asked for.

SS was a pretty dramatic bait-and-switch, with a completely open-ended reveal demo, only to find out that what seemed to be a fairly open area (Faron Woods) would wind up being a hub for mandatory fetch quests in the final game (Kikwis, Silent Realm, Tadtones). And that was a continuation of the Twilight Princess tradition of having a rather large area to explore but inevitably only having one direction in which it's actually meaningful to go.

People are right to be skeptical when they see what looks like an open world, since Nintendo hasn't demonstrated that they know how to do a non-island-based one in 3D yet.

I still disagree but I'm too lazy to go into a whole thing right now so I'll just let it sit like this

 

[Asbear]

People are really up in arms about the possibility of Fujibayashi returning, like they think because he was the director he decided every creative decision in the game? Did you forget that he isn't a writer? Skyward's Sword's plot was meh because its writer came up with a meh plot. The linear structure of the game was probably mostly Fujibayashi's doing, not to mention a lot of parrallels in design with Minish Cap (a game which most Zelda fans LOVE by the way) like the Skyward Cubes that are like Kinstones (except it doesn't work that well in a drawn-out 3D environment)

But even if it's Fujibayashi it already seems to be set in stone that it won't be like Skyward Sword at all, so what's the fuss about? It seems to be continuing the non-linear style of ALBW from what I can see, but with Fujibayashi's design philosophy and craving for cinematic and rich narrative design (and hopefully better writing this time) I think it's gonna be like a good mix of what worked in SS and ALBW, plus a multitude of inspirations from past Zeldas, particularly the original and Wind Waker.

 

[Lunar15]

My bold prediction: The next E3 trailer will introduce the "thing" that's going to make a bunch of people flip out in anger.

There's one for every Zelda.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Zeldablue, with all due respect, I read your posts and sometimes think that you're just a burnt out fan. Like there was a time where this series seemed magical to you but you slowly just grew out of it and things that you were cool with previously weren't going to cut it. Because most of these criticisms and concerns seem awfully selectively applied.

Yeah.. as much of a Zelda fanatic you can be I honestly feel like you might be burnt out and hinge too much on the past

 

[zeldablue]

Yeah.. as much of a Zelda fanatic you can be I honestly feel like you might be burnt out and hinge too much on the past

Because I'm hyper critical of two Zelda games...?

>:S

 

[TheMoon]

People are really up in arms about the possibility of Fujibayashi returning, like they think because he was the director he decided every creative decision in the game? Did you forget that he isn't a writer? Skyward's Sword's plot was meh because its writer came up with a meh plot. The linear structure of the game was probably mostly Fujibayashi's doing, not to mention a lot of parrallels in design with Minish Cap (a game which most Zelda fans LOVE by the way) like the Skyward Cubes that are like Kinstones (except it doesn't work that well in a drawn-out 3D environment)

Just FYI as I just did some googling to refresh my memory: Fujibayashi did write the basic plot outline for the game but Naoki Mori ended up writing the dialog/script as part of the cinematics team. Note that an outline is basically a summary of any given story which serves as the basis for the final script. So while Fujibayashi is responsible for the broad strokes and key points, all the granular details and actual lines of dialog came from Mori.

Because I'm hyper critical of two Zelda games...?

>:S

Maybe it doesn't help that the discussion currently keeps circling back to Skyward Sword and (SS) Zelda herself which leads to you voicing your extreme dislike towards both ;D

I dunno, maybe that makes it seem worse than it is.^^

 

[zeldablue]

Maybe it doesn't help that the discussion currently keeps circling back to Skyward Sword and (SS) Zelda herself which leads to you voicing your extreme dislike towards both ;D

I dunno, maybe that makes it seem worse than it is.^^

Alright, I'll lay off the SS bashing. I still enjoyed the game regardless of how many complaints I have about it.

Just FYI as I just did some googling to refresh my memory: Fujibayashi did write the basic plot outline for the game but Naoki Mori ended up writing the dialog/script as part of the cinematics team. Note that an outline is basically a summary of any given story which serves as the basis for the final script. So while Fujibayashi is responsible for the broad strokes and key points, all the granular details and actual lines of dialog came from Mori.

So it was him. He did this! Keep him extremely far away from the story in Zelda U.

 

[Inquisitive_Ghost]

Eh...I didn't like his motive. It's the same as Agahmin and Zant. Except Zant was also a wuss who was really jealous and stuff. And his connection to Midna was interesting. (Now that I think about it...if he had ties with Fi, that would have been pretty cool.)

Fi was emotionless and robotic because she was almost in stasis for centuries. Ghirahim was petty, bitter and insane because he was wandering the earth for centuries, unable to accomplish his goal.

I like villains who are more human. Like Ganondorf in TWW, or Skull kid or even

Spoiler

Hilda.

If the bad guy is just a straight up evil dude doing evil things, it feels pretty lame for me. It's not relatable. Like Ganondorf in TP. I don't want that again. When I say generic I mean that feeling you get when you realize the bad guy is bad because he's just bad.

Ganondorf in TP is evil because, due to events in OoT, he was simply "granted" (from his perspective) the Triforce of Power for no apparent reason and developed a god complex because of it. He assumed the gods favoured him and he must have deserved it.

I have a bigger problem with Demise than with Ghirahim.

 

[Orniletter]

Because every game they promise that we'll get something that exceeds Ocarina of Time/A Link to the Past/The Legend of Zelda in terms of exploration/gameplay/quality, but with every game we usually get one step forward, ten steps back.

After about the fifth time, people are starting to decide they won't be fooled.

I don´t understand, all those games have been surpassed.

 

[LegendofLex]

I don´t understand, all those games have been surpassed.

I can't think of a single Zelda game that defines people's understanding of how open a game world can be more than LoZ.

I can't think of a single Zelda game since OoT that's added as much brand-new content to Hyrule as LttP.

I can't think of a single Zelda game since OoT that's universally recognized as an all-time classic.

My point was exactly the opposite. It was not just him. You not liking Zelda's portrayal is on Mori and how he wrote her. We don't know how specific the outline from Fujibayashi was in regards to character bits. The Iwata Asks makes it sound more like general plot regarding Link's journey with the sword and all.

I'd say the broad "high school drama" strokes were probably something that would have to have been agreed upon at the director level, even if the minutia of the script was up to Mori.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Because I'm hyper critical of two Zelda games...?

>:S

All the Zelda games if you wanted to be

 

[TheMoon]

So it was him. He did this! Keep him extremely far away from the story in Zelda U.

My point was exactly the opposite. It was not just him. You not liking Zelda's portrayal is on Mori and how he wrote her. We don't know how specific the outline from Fujibayashi was in regards to character bits. The Iwata Asks makes it sound more like general plot regarding Link's journey with the sword and all.

At the very least keep an open mind and don't let your extreme dislike make you jump to conclusions.

 

[Dimmle]

Ghirahim was petty, bitter and insane because he was wandering the earth for centuries, unable to accomplish his goal.

Ganondorf in TP is evil because, due to events in OoT, he was simply "granted" (from his perspective) the Triforce of Power for no apparent reason and developed a god complex because of it. He assumed the gods favoured him and he must have deserved it.

I have a bigger problem with Demise than with Ghirahim.

It's been a while since I've played either game so I'm not clear on how close to the surface these readings are, but I love your descriptions. Could you just sit behind me and annotate characters while I play the new game?

 

[Lunar15]

I think the main problem is that nostalgia keeps people from letting stuff exceed those expectations.

Also, we're talking about a series that's been going on for over 15 iterations. Once the core "idea" of a franchise is found, it's kind of hard to "top" it unless you add in a massive paradigm shift like the transition to 3D. Zelda figured out what it "is" in ALTTP and then brought that exact concept to 3D with OOT. Everything after that is an iteration on that concept that's going to be hit or miss with people from that point.

It's all about having the right expectations. I've never been let down by a Zelda game, because the team knows how to make a damn good game. I'm not looking for any of them to "exceed" some weird specific benchmark I've carved out of the nostalgia in my head. I'm just looking for something that stays consistently enjoyable.

 

[Dimmle]

I think the main problem is that nostalgia keeps people from letting stuff exceed those expectations.

Also, we're talking about a series that's been going on for over 15 iterations. Once the core "idea" of a franchise is found, it's kind of hard to "top" it unless you add in a massive paradigm shift like the transition to 3D. Zelda figured out what it "is" in ALTTP and then brought that exact concept to 3D with OOT. Everything after that is an iteration on that concept that's going to be hit or miss with people from that point.

It's all about having the right expectations. I've never been let down by a Zelda game, because the team knows how to make a damn good game. I'm not looking for any of them to "exceed" some weird specific benchmark I've carved out of the nostalgia in my head. I'm just looking for something that stays consistently enjoyable.

I see what you're saying.

You're saying this new game is going to CHANGE EVERYTHING

 

[Astral Dog]

Compared to villians in other games, I don't disagree. Compared to Zelda games? Pretty good, merely due to the fact that he has presence. Nothing really compares to Skull Kid in terms of motivation, though.

I've always found that citing Ganondorf from TWW is really weird because he really is just evil for the sake of being evil except for literally one line where he says "I was jealous once". I mean, I get it, some motivation is better than none... but that's really really pushing it.

Ganondorf on Wind Waker was the best, its not just one line, its everything that he does,

After he was revived, he went on a rampage killing everyone to get to the Hero who beat him, fails to find him, he is then punished by the Gods with the flood.

We then see him as wiser, fat, and old in Wind Waker, he kills the sages so that they cant power the Master Sword, he sends his troops to look for Zelda,at this point he just does not want to kill Link and get revenge, he just wants the kingdom of old, he hates the great sea for he sees it as a simple desert.

Then he says he wanted the wind of Hyrule, and has been searching for hundreds of years for it, he ignores Link and goes for the triforce in an effort to bring Hyrule back, when Daphnes touches it first he wishes for the Gods to destroy Hyrule and Ganondorf snaps, he then just wants to get revenge, when he is finally killed the last thing he sees are the winds of his homeland.

Its not much, but they gave this otherwise evil character a touch of humanity, that is absent from most Zelda games.

 

[ibyea]

I can't think of a single Zelda game that defines people's understanding of how open a game world can be more than LoZ.

You know, not everyone loves Zelda 1's extreme open ended structure, even though it was revolutionary back in the 80s.

 

[Inquisitive_Ghost]

It's been a while since I've played either game so I'm not clear on how close to the surface these readings are, but I love your descriptions. Could you just sit behind me and annotate characters while I play the new game?

Haha! Analyzing and deconstructing character and theme in media I enjoy is a favourite thing of mine.

 

[LegendofLex]

I think the main problem is that nostalgia keeps people from letting stuff exceed those expectations.

I don't think so.

I adore SMB3, but haven't been as enamored with the NSMB series.
Meanwhile, I grew up on SM64, but I drastically prefer Galaxy.

I recognize that SMB3 was on the cutting edge of level design at the time, while NSMB obviously isn't. But that isn't just based on my experience with the game--the developers have stated numerous times that they were shooting for a lower common denominator so casual players could finish the game, while offering collect-a-thon elements to challenge experienced players.

Meanwhile, Ocarina of Time was my first Zelda game, but I find myself way more enamored with the open world approach of the original LoZ today, even though I never really played it until 2011.

It can't just be nostalgia. I'd wager it's a recognition that certain defining qualities simply aren't there any more--the simple, open exploration and reflex-heavy combat of LoZ has become the puzzle-driven exploration and AI-exploitation combat of SS; the raw levels of SMB3 have become the fully-choreographed levels of NSMBU. The games have changed in a way that doesn't have the same appeal.

You know, not everyone loves Zelda 1's extreme open ended structure, even though it was revolutionary back in the 80s.

You'd never know if people would like it today, because Nintendo never actually bothered to improve on it.

You do, however, know that Zelda's popularity is much lower than it used to be (sales tell you this) at the very same time that people have consistently proven that open world games are massively appealing (sales of Minecraft, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed, et al.). I do not think this is a coincidence.

I'd wager people do like open-ended structure--it's just that Zelda hasn't actually offered it since the early 90s (bar ALBW*). In fact, Zelda has missed out on the open world resurgence so badly that it was actually moving in the exact opposite direction as these games came on the scene.

*I suppose you could debatably say that OoT is somewhat open, since it really does let you go lots of places from the get-go even if there's a recommended, partly-required order of things.

 

[zeldablue]

My point was exactly the opposite. It was not just him. You not liking Zelda's portrayal is on Mori and how he wrote her. We don't know how specific the outline from Fujibayashi was in regards to character bits. The Iwata Asks makes it sound more like general plot regarding Link's journey with the sword and all.

At the very least keep an open mind and don't let your extreme dislike make you jump to conclusions.

I like Mori. He's written for Zelda since OoT. My problem with SS Zelda has everything to do with her presence being cramped in the beginning of the game and being extremely superfluous outside of that.

Fi was emotionless and robotic because she was almost in stasis for centuries. Ghirahim was petty, bitter and insane because he was wandering the earth for centuries, unable to accomplish his goal.



Ganondorf in TP is evil because, due to events in OoT, he was simply "granted" (from his perspective) the Triforce of Power for no apparent reason and developed a god complex because of it. He assumed the gods favoured him and he must have deserved it.

I have a bigger problem with Demise than with Ghirahim.

Oh Ganondorf. Yeah, he did get a God complex... lol. At the time I couldn't figure out TP's timeline placement and I was very underwhelmed by how he interacted with Link. Though it makes sense knowing that Ganondorf never met the Hero of Time in the Child's Timeline. Link is just some random loser.

 

[Dimmle]

Haha! Analyzing and deconstructing character and theme in media I enjoy is a favourite thing of mine.

Mine too. I just don't remember Ganondorf being so interesting in TP. I'll be sticking to your reading from now on!

 

[Inquisitive_Ghost]

Ganondorf on Wind Waker was the best, its not just one line, its everything that he does,

After he was revived, he went on a rampage killing everyone to get to the Hero who beat him, fails to find him, he is then punished by the Gods with the flood.

We then see him as wiser, fat, and old in Wind Waker, he kills the sages so that they cant power the Master Sword, he sends his troops to look for Zelda,at this point he just does not want to kill Link and get revenge, he just wants the kingdom of old, he hates the great sea for he sees it as a simple desert.

Then he says he wanted the wind of Hyrule, and has been searching for hundreds of years for it, he ignores Link and goes for the triforce in an effort to bring Hyrule back, when Daphnes touches it first he wishes for the Gods to destroy Hyrule and Ganondorf snaps, he then just wants to get revenge, when he is finally killed the last thing he sees are the winds of his homeland.

To add to this, it's pretty fun to compare Ganondorf in WW to Ganondorf in TP because they're at the same point in different timelines. WW Ganondorf gained some wisdom and humility from his initial defeat and went about his goal afterwards with better planning and a great deal more self-awareness. TP Ganondorf didn't learn anything from his initial defeat because he spontaneously gained the Triforce of Power during it. It "proved" he was correct and his attempted execution was blasphemous.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I prefer Zelda getting kidnapped at the tail end when most of the story is already over so it doesn't even matter.

Or, you know, not getting kidnapped at all.

I may be misremembering Skyward Sword, but doesn't Zelda not actually get kidnapped?

Like, that was the big twist of meeting her and Impa. She was doing shit and she didn't want Link involved when Link thought he was rescuing her. She wasn't being a damsel in distress.

 

[ibyea]

You'd never know if people would like it today, because Nintendo never actually bothered to improve on it.

You do, however, know that Zelda's popularity is much lower than it used to be (sales tell you this) at the very same time that people have consistently proven that open world games are massively appealing (sales of Minecraft, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed, et al.). I do not think this is a coincidence.

I'd wager people do like open-ended structure--it's just that Zelda hasn't actually offered it since the early 90s (bar ALBW*). In fact, Zelda has missed out on the open world resurgence so badly that it was actually moving in the exact opposite direction as these games came on the scene.

*I suppose you could debatably say that OoT is somewhat open, since it really does let you go lots of places from the get-go even if there's a recommended, partly-required order of things.

See, those open world games, unlike Zelda 1, actually has directions. So I don't actually feel like I am wasting my time. Minecraft, well, that is a sandbox game, so you can do whatever the heck you want. Edit: Also, I don't mind that Zelda hasn't gone to the open world side. Open world does not equal good, linear does not equal bad. It's all on how it's done that matters. I personally think Zelda did whatever it did well. And sometimes, what the public likes changes, and so certain aspects of Zelda is not as appealing as it used to be. I am okay with that.

 

[LegendofLex]

I may be misremembering Skyward Sword, but doesn't Zelda not actually get kidnapped?

Spoiler

There is that time right at the end where Ghirahim walks up and grabs her in front of everybody, Link included, to bring to the past as a sacrifice.

 

[Inquisitive_Ghost]

I may be misremembering Skyward Sword, but doesn't Zelda not actually get kidnapped?

Like, that was the big twist of meeting her and Impa. She was doing shit and she didn't want Link involved when Link thought he was rescuing her. She wasn't being a damsel in distress.

Spoiler

She gets kidnapped right before the final boss battle.

Edit: Beaten.

 

[LegendofLex]

See, those open world games, unlike Zelda 1, actually has directions. So I don't actually feel like I am wasting my time.

You're right. But Zelda 1 was one of the best-selling games ever when it came out. I really doubt it had this reputation back then. An open world Zelda made today would (and does) come with a more informative, interactive, integrated in-game map that is a better navigation aid, instead of relying on players to make their own maps/use the map in the manual.

I don't think anyone has ever lauded Zelda 1 for how hard it is for players to tell where they are in relation to where they're going. Or how hard it is to figure out where to go in the first place. What people like about Zelda 1 is that there are no rails keeping you from going wherever you want to, and the game isn't constantly shoving directions in your face.

Minecraft, well, that is a sandbox game, so you can do whatever the heck you want.

Zelda was the original sandbox game. The main differences were that the game didn't revolve around mining and crafting materials and wasn't procedurally-generated. Otherwise, people were free to play it in much the same way--just wandering the world, or finding dungeons to fight through.

 

[Dimmle]

Minecraft, well, that is a sandbox game, so you can do whatever the heck you want.

That was the appeal of Zelda 1. You've got free reign to explore Hyrule and you're free to complete its dungeons at your own pace. The fun is in the discovery of those dungeons. Being instructed on exactly where to head would compromise the game's design.

 

[MAtgS]

Frankly I'm fine with purely evil villains, there's nothing all that unrealistic about people with power wanting more power. We see plenty of that in real life afterall. Besides, the story is generally more about the hero's journey than it is about the villain.

 

[Lunar15]

Aren't Zelda 1's dungeons still essentially linear in that it usually takes the item from the previous dungeon to unlock the next?

It's been a while, so I could be really wrong here.

 

[ibyea]

That was the appeal of Zelda 1. You've got free reign to explore Hyrule and you're free to complete its dungeons at your own pace. The fun is in the discovery of those dungeons. Being instructed on exactly where to head would compromise the game's design.

I disagree. Its game design was already compromised. Zelda 1 is an open world game, not a sandbox game. Note, I realize that in the 80s, game design was not as well established as it is today, so I realize that at the time it was incredible. The perspective I am coming from is me as a gamer in 2014.