A Quick Question from a Frustrated Fan

[Forestlink 0]

So I had a question I wanted to ask the knowledgeable fans of this site about. But before that, a little introduction of myself.

I consider myself a Zelda fan. My username even has 'link' in it, so I guess that's proof that I'm a legit follower. I mean, someone wouldn't put something he didn't love in his username, right? My first Zelda game was Ocarina, and like a lot of other people, I loved it. I moved on to M'sMask, and loved it even more. At that point Twilight Princess came out (I was playing the N64 when every one else had their gamecube) and all three games tied for my favorite Zelda. I went  and played Wind Waker later, which never really agreed with me. Just something about the style - eh - didn't seem right. Don't want to offend anyone (I mean, I don't have a problem with you liking it) but I don't dig that cel-shaded stuff. So I was ready to get back the nice look of Twilight Princess, when Phantom Hourglass came out. Disappointed  I waited. Spirit Tracks. I waited some more. Skyward Sword. Now I was getting frustrated, and that's where I am now. There, the back story is complete and you guys can get on to my question. 

Declaimer: I am perfectly aware that this sounds like a potential graphical style rant post; it isn't.

The Question: Will Nintendo make another Zelda with a Twilight Princess look to it. And if so, do you think it will be sooner rather than later? I now have doubts that Nintendo is going to go that way again. Skyward sword was more of a hybrid but still leaned toward Wind Waker more than Twilight. Not that the gameplay was bad at all - it was a great game - but I can't really feeling that I got when playing M'sMask or Ocarina...

So please, leave your two cents because I would really like to hear from you. I couldn't find a good webpage on the internet that dealt specifically with this topic, but that could be because I just can't use Google Search properly  If that's the case, just tell me politely that I'm am idiot and leave a link.

Thanks,

-Forestlink

[Teto 2609]

Who knows really. Their more recent games are mostly all cartoony sort of styled things. I personally don't mind it, but I can see how it can take away from the darker themes that people might like. We don't know anything about future games, so it's hard to say, but I think that since the games are probably near enough evenly split between the two sides of the scale (for the games where the graphics are good enough for the style to be very apparent), that the next game could be either. Guess it just depends on what kind of story they want to tell next.

 

------

 

But that's just me saying things with no research. A quick Google search of "next zelda game" gave me this article:

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/09/wii-u-zelda-game-coming-2014/

 

According to our source in Japan, Nintendo is betting big on the next Zelda game, set for release in 2014 on the Wii U. This comes from the same source that accurately predicted Wii U achievements in the past, and broke the news Nintendo was working on a Wii U social network, which turned out to be Miiverse. So we’re quite confident in this information. The source is from within Nintendo and has seen the new Zelda game in action. He’s impressed, to say the least.

 

The first bit of information concerns the visual style of the game. Many Zelda fans are hoping for a darker, Twilight Princes-like Zelda on the Wii U, but it looks like Nintendo is sticking to most recent Zelda art style, found in Skyward Sword. “Nintendo is sticking to the core values of Zelda, while trying to appeal to a wide range of gamers, casual and hardcore”, our source told us, adding, “They feel they’ve found the sweet spot with Skyward Sword, and they’re continuing this approach with the Wii U Zelda game”.

 

So going on that, Zelda for Wii U will probably be the same style as Skyward Sword, if the source really was legit.

[pheonix561 2080]

From what I understand, Twilight princess was made to try and get more attention from western audiences. If you'll remember, it was made during a time when for some 5-8 years gritty reboots were the norm. I wouldn't count on another gritty zelda any time soon.

[PrimaGaga 1025]

Twilight Princess was brown and grey and i hope it's visual style never returns.

[Chimetals 344]

both TP and WW were nintendo messing with the visual styles. the fact nintendo did a 180 after WW to drop TP is strong evidence they were just messing around. ST and PH followed WWs style because the three are related sequentially, etc etc. basically just nintendo playing around for a new look for link as the consoles were better able to give the guy a face.

 

even in TP, they had some cel shading going on, actually.

 

but i might be misunderstanding your question a bit, perhaps. you said you liked MM, OoT, and TP, but what exactly charmed you in each of them? puzzles? characters? just the styles? less whimsy? that theyre kainda dark? (especially MM and OoT, as older games tend to go dark without trying for grit)

[Forestlink 0]

both TP and WW were nintendo messing with the visual styles. the fact nintendo did a 180 after WW to drop TP is strong evidence they were just messing around. ST and PH followed WWs style because the three are related sequentially, etc etc. basically just nintendo playing around for a new look for link as the consoles were better able to give the guy a face.

 

even in TP, they had some cel shading going on, actually.

 

but i might be misunderstanding your question a bit, perhaps. you said you liked MM, OoT, and TP, but what exactly charmed you in each of them? puzzles? characters? just the styles? less whimsy? that theyre kainda dark? (especially MM and OoT, as older games tend to go dark without trying for grit)

 

Maybe I like OoT and the others because they were the first Zelda games I played, I dunno. I liked the characters and puzzles, but the thing that I liked most was the environments. That's what really made Zelda stick out to me. Hyrule Field was huge, the temples were mysterious, and the cutscenes were bold and drematic. It felt like you were playing a movie, that you were in the story itself. I found myself wondering, "I wonder who built this temple?", or "What happened here to make these people like they are?". For some reason, with Wind Waker I didn't get that feeling too often. It felt like it was just a game, with a nice story and musical score, but the sense of mystery and intrigue was gone. I think it had something to do with how much brighter everything was, and that little purple rat people with pointy sticks don't inspire the same fear in you as a disembodied, walking hand does. I don't want Zelda to turn into an adult zombie game, no, but I think it's strayed too far towards a younger crowd. I think after 4 cel-shaded games an OoT or TP style game isn't too much to ask for.

 

@Teto

Thanks for that link. Discouraging, yes, but thank you anyway.

@

ʎɹɐpuǝƃǝ˥ʎlǝƃɹɐ˥

Poor attempt at sarcasm, my bad.

Edited 29 Dec 2012 by Forestlink (see edit history)

[Chase 390]

Ocarina's graphics aren't exactly realistic. And Twilight Princess' graphic engine is based off the Wind Waker's. I think you're being picky for no reason.

Twilight Princess is probably the worst console Zelda in a long time. The least creative, at least. It was structured similarly to Ocarina and even played out similarly. The game lost its storytelling ability after the 3rd dungeon.

Wind Waker suffered from the opposite problem. The story was excellent, the world was lively and huge, the characters loveable and relatable. But the dungeons left a lot to be desired.

I think Majora's Mask did the best with getting it all right and it was the least "Zelda-like" of them all.

Skyward Sword suffers from backtracking. The story is passable and some of the dungeon design is ingenious.

I don't think graphics play into it at all, really.

[Chimetals 344]

curiosity: did you beat WW, ST, or PH? just wondering if you got to the ending on WW, mostly.

 

@chase

every zelda game has its pros and cons. they always experiment a bit, but stick to a general formula.

[Forestlink 0]

To answer your question Chimetals; I did beat WW plus a little more (Heart pieces, islands, etc, etc), I played through a good deal of Phantom before stopping, and have never touched Spirit Tracks. Why I didn't play Phantom or Spirit probably comes down to more of a platform problem than style issues. I never have liked handheld as much as console and therefore never owned a DS of my own, which of course lead to me not getting around to Spirit Tracks or finishing Phantom. 

 

@chase

You're right when you say OoT isn't realistic, but I don't really have a better word to articulate it. Maybe serious is a better word. Both games (OoT & WW) had their serious moments and their ridiculous ones, but OoT seemed more committed to giving the player something that was more like Lord of the Rings while WW was similar to a Disney movie. That's not a very good analogy, but what I'm saying is that one's good and the other's better.

I don't know exactly what you mean by graphic engine, but I'm talking about the visual style. There's a distinct visual presentation difference between Twilight and Wind Waker.

 

 

@ʎɹɐpuǝƃǝ˥ʎlǝƃɹɐ˥

(man you have a crazy username, lol)

What do you mean by successful? Like, good ratings or good sales or what? Almost every Zelda game gets good ratings so I guess you're talking about sales. Twilight Princess sold roughly 7 mill copies and OoT sold 7.6 mill. Wind Waker sold only 4.6 mill. I think that's unfair to the game because it was cleverly designed and I did enjoy it greatly, but compared to TP or OoT it was not as successful.

Edited 31 Dec 2012 by Forestlink (see edit history)

[Cirt 612]

Twilight Princess is probably the worst console Zelda in a long time. The least creative, at least. It was structured similarly to Ocarina and even played out similarly. The game lost its storytelling ability after the 3rd dungeon.

Wind Waker suffered from the opposite problem. The story was excellent, the world was lively and huge, the characters loveable and relatable. But the dungeons left a lot to be desired.

This is where I both agree and disagree with you, Chase. I agree that TP is one of the worse 3D Zeldas, and I never was drawn into the story. I wish I'd at least played it on the GC, because what really pushed it away for me was the infuriating Wii controls. Plus the map was enormous and empty, many places serving one purpose to only never be revisited again.

Wind Waker's story was...better. The characters were okay, but I never really related to them like I did with Majoras Mask. The map was much better, but only so many islands had more than one purpose. I can understand the criticism of the graphics because I used to have the same complaint, but it really grew on me (I played OoT/MM -> TP -> SS -> WW which probably helped) and it was wonderfully smooth. Not to mention WW's Link was a fun little punk and it was really great to see a new dimension of that.

I thought WW's dungeons were...okay. There weren't many of them (same can be said of MM, I guess, but half the work of MM was even getting to them) and I guess since I'd already played TP and SS at that point, I'd already seen all the puzzles (and items) the game had to offer. I don't know. There was something kind of disconnected about it that I can't quite put my finger on.

[Chimetals 344]

To answer your question Chimetals; I did beat WW plus a little more (Heart pieces, islands, etc, etc), I played through a good deal of Phantom before stopping, and have never touched Spirit Tracks. Why I didn't play Phantom or Spirit probably comes down to more of a platform problem than style issues. I never have liked handheld as much as console and therefore never owned a DS of my own, which of course lead to me not getting around to Spirit Tracks or finishing Phantom.

ok, just making sure it wasnt like a "it wasnt serious" thing, given its final boss finale and all that.

 

im starting to get a feel of what you mean by the styles, you just didnt word it in the best way initially, i think. its kainda one of those more intangible things--basically: youre not looking for grit and angst, but you want a zelda with a darker sort of world/story--something more twisted on the inside. like the feeling you get from the skulletta house in OoT, or when you make the seven year jump to find that the castle town is populated by redeads.

 

@ʎɹɐpuǝƃǝ˥ʎlǝƃɹɐ˥

(man you have a crazy username, lol)

just call him LL

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Ocarina of Time really did visit kind of darker, more serious areas, but it required a bit of imagination to take you there. You really don't think of how this is all going for Link, because the main focus is in how you feel when you play as him. Otherwise, his character is mostly dull as a rock. But I like to think that Ocarina of Time was a kind of jarring reverse coming-of-age story. A small child is not only forced to face his destiny at a young age, but is then forced into an adult's body after pretty much losing the capacity or ability to make friends/who can relate to him. Then he's forced to watch the world crumble at his feet with the pressure on him to save all of creation, and then he's forced back into a child's body. You kind of have to think, how did Link feel after that? No one in that universe experienced what he went through; he was in a different timeline, before he even met Zelda. No one knew what was going to happen but him, and he had to somehow convince everyone that horrible things were about to transpire.

 

Then you know, the complete psychological hell that Majora's Mask must have been. I could talk about it forever but I'm pretty sure we already know.

 

Wind Waker had a much more expressive and whimsical Link. I think it really did have some heartfelt moments in there. Most people see Link running off the cliff trying to save his sister as reckless stupidity or something comical like that, because of the art style or something, but taking it at face value, Link values his sister so much that if she's in danger, he completely forgets where he is and only blindly tries to rescue her. That really kind of hit me, and established Link's character as someone who would take up a sword and shield and become a hero, but someone who would eventually grow so that he wouldn't make those kinds of mistakes anymore. It had a lot of moments like this, and despite the whimsical look, it felt kind of mellowed and more mature to me. Like sure, I'm always up for something that conveys complete emotional despair and agony that video games can put you in the shoes in, but Wind Waker still felt good to see unfold, and the whimsical characters and environments definitely helped that.

 

Ganondorf was the older and wiser villain who wanted to rule the world, not because he's power hungry, but for more complex reasons. You got the impression that when he spared Link's life, that he was an almost completely different man than the Ganondorf from Ocarina of Time, because you would think he'd still be bitter about the hero who stopped him. It had a wonderful self-awareness and consistency all the way throughout, and it was really satisfying. Despite the art and more child-friendly look to it, it's still more complex of a story than many games you can play who do cookie cutter routines and have soap opera dialogues. What makes it different is its expression-- without having to have characters that look very human, or even vocal language, it conveys an all-too-human plot with mostly facial cues and text, and creates a really bizarre, yet beautiful world around you. Most "serious" media that have actors have faces with two or three settings-- angry or sad, and if it's gritty, seductive. That's not what the human experience is about. There are all kinds of emotions to portray, and Wind Waker didn't hold to restrictions like that.

 

That's all just story stuff, alluding to the whole seriousness aspect. The dungeons in Wind Waker were certainly beautiful, though there weren't as many in it as the previous Zelda games, and they all had a different style that didn't feel like it was rehashed from previous ideas. The reason, I think, that they didn't really need as many dungeons is because they took a more experimental turn. There are actually loads of dungeons. All over the map. Each zone has an island that has something to do on it. The prize isn't a macguffin or anything, mostly just Rupees and Heart Containers, but then, what's wrong with a dungeon that has a prize like that? You're on an adventure trying to become stronger. The depth in just exploration was probably because they didn't just have four dungeons, but four dungeons plus an entire world full of deliberately designed areas that you could get lost in. You had to be smart about some of them, too, or you had to be skilled in combat, which was great in how fluid it was. You even had to work in getting through the ocean that you travel through, and it was always a slightly different trip. So bravo for that.

 

I am all for a return to a style like Twilight Princess, though. I liked the kind of change in pace, but not in the direction they were walking. If they do something like TP again, they better be deliberate, and take the time to flesh out and design the game with the meticulous care they did with the other Zeldas. TP was mostly dull, uninteresting landscape, with dull, uninteresting characters, and eventually, dull, uninteresting visuals. Don't get me wrong, the game is really beautiful and interesting when you look at it (even when you just look at the night sky), but when you're walking around on it, it kind of wears on you. It was still a good game; they not only used WW's graphics engine, but also used its gameplay engine, and it's hard to mess that up. The attacks and stuff were fun.

 

They really had a promising start. They set up everything all nice and neat, but the game was so clearly unfinished. Really great moments happened mostly far apart, and you really didn't feel like you were fighting against anything that was too threatening. The dungeons were mostly pretty good, but then, the game at its core was so easy, and the puzzles never left you stumped. The overworld was the most uninteresting out of any Zelda title. The characters were mostly cookie cutouts with something like the aforemetioned binary traits. Rather than having characters who express a range of emotions over a distinct personality, everyone was just a somewhat distinguished personality who expressed maybe one or two emotions at a time, except for Midna; arguably one of the only real characters. It had a lot of consistency problems in terms of game feel. They just needed more time, and it would have been a heavy contender in game quality, and hopefully I would be able to take it more seriously, but they laid the whole "serious" theme on too thick using bread that was too thin. I personally liked the Wii controls, but I admit that sometimes I wished I could just press a button or use the control stick instead.

 

But I would be disappointed if they didn't try something like TP again, without trying to be really dark and gritty. And maybe some more consistency and forethought, like jeez. The Bokoblins' leader sides with you and they're all still attacking you. Then they miss the opportunity to have the Ganondorf fight against the ghost horsemen aided with them, ugh. It would have been fantastic.

 

Also, Skyward Sword was amazing so.

 

Incidentally, you shouldn't try to only play the 3D home console Zeldas. The other ones are just as great. You should try to pick up the handheld ones like Oracle of Ages/Seasons (get both, they're beautiful), Link's Awakening, Minish Cap, Four Sword etc. Spirit Tracks was pretty great too, and you should at least try to finish PH. Also, don't ignore the other console games. The S/NES counts as a home console still, goodness. If you liked the 3D home console versions, LttP is a must, because it's really where they decided on the formula that they're still using. Play Zelda II with an open mind, and play Zelda I knowing that it's historically significant. Also, play Four Swords Adventures. It deserves more people playing it than it got. ):

[Chimetals 344]

WW: What makes it different is its expression-- without having to have characters that look very human, or even vocal language, it conveys an all-too-human plot with mostly facial cues and text, and creates a really bizarre, yet beautiful world around you.

 

TP: The characters were mostly cookie cutouts with something like the aforemetioned binary traits. Rather than having characters who express a range of emotions over a distinct personality, everyone was just a somewhat distinguished personality who expressed maybe one or two emotions at a time, except for Midna; arguably one of the only real characters.

reminded me of cracked.com's article on WW.

"just a few of WW links many expressions"

"Twilight Princess Link's only two expressions."

[Sahaqiel 1232]

I wonder if this guy is even going to revisit the thread.

[Forestlink 0]

I wonder if this guy is even going to revisit the thread.

Ouch. Can I at least have a day to reply?

 

Anyway, that was a very impressive post. And I was very impressed. But although I was impressed, I think you missed my point. Although you did mention style a little bit, you had quiet a bit of wordage that compared the games. That's not what I'm going for here. I have my opinion and you have your's on how good WW and TP were. I found TP to have beautiful environments and a wonderful story. I found the temples challenging and that the characters each had their own personality. I thought that WW's characters were sorda flat and that the ocean got dull after awhile. (I thought that fields and valleys and giant bridges were more interesting than 10 minutes of solid blue)  But that's my opinion  We could argue all day on which game was better, but I would still leave think TP was better and I doubt I could change your mind either. I am talking about graphical style, in particular about which type the upcoming Zelda game might be in. I saw a very promising demo at the E3 of a TPish looking Zelda. And I was looking for any news that the content of that demo might turn into a game that looks similar. 

 

And I know I'm being hypocritical because I've been off topic as well for the past few posts.

 

And I would also like to thank you for all the effort you put into that post - it was a good read.

 

"im starting to get a feel of what you mean by the styles, you just didnt word it in the best way initially, i think. its kainda one of those more intangible things--basically: youre not looking for grit and angst, but you want a zelda with a darker sort of world/story--something more twisted on the inside. like the feeling you get from the skulletta house in OoT, or when you make the seven year jump to find that the castle town is populated by redeads"

 

Yes, you worded that nicely. But the non-cel-shaded stuff is also very important to me since I believe that it represents that type of Zelda much better.

Wind Waker's story was...better. The characters were okay, but I never really related to them like I did with Majoras Mask. The map was much better, but only so many islands had more than one purpose. I can understand the criticism of the graphics because I used to have the same complaint, but it really grew on me (I played OoT/MM -> TP -> SS -> WW which probably helped) and it was wonderfully smooth.

 

That's... interesting. I played in a similar order (OoT-MM-TP-WW) but WW's stlye didn't grow on me like it did you. I guess WW was too much of a change for me after the previous three.