The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Wii U / Switch

[Grazza]

Its not necessarily about what people want - the same fans asked for an OOT-like Zelda - then complained at TP being too similar to OOT thus being almost irrelevant.

 

I have to wonder though, how many fans complained TP was too similar to OOT compared to the amount who actually bought it? It must be a tiny percentage. What TP achieved is that it got almost 9m people excited enough to stump up the money for it.

 

If you look at the less successful titles in that list, their low sales were totally predictable. Whilst I preferred Spirit Tracks to Phantom Hourglass, there was no hype for it in advance. Skyward Sword was not highly anticipated and, although it got good reviews, it now seems to be judged in line with its pre-hype. A Link Between Worlds is an excellent game, but I honestly wasn't very excited about it in advance, and certainly didn't buy the 3DS for it (I'd already bought two!)

 

What I'm saying is that I think there's a lesson here. The higher sales are from when Nintendo went all-out to make the best possible game for the system, and fans were desperate to get their hands on them.

[Jonnas]

I have to wonder though, how many fans complained TP was too similar to OOT compared to the amount who actually bought it? It must be a tiny percentage. What TP achieved is that it got almost 9m people excited enough to stump up the money for it.

 

A good chunk of those 9m, I would wager

 

My personal complaints with TP have more to do with how it didn't really know what it wanted to be. "An epic, darker adventure" seems to be roughly what it wanted to be, but it had little direction in how it was going to do it.

 

I wouldn't criticise TP for "being too much like OoT", but I would criticise it for "Being like OoT, but only superficially". And there were many who criticised TP on actual game content (like the empty/segmented overworld, redundant items, boring twilight segments, rupee inflation, etc.).

 

In the end, its sales are really only a reflection of how well it was marketed. Majora's Mask literally looked exactly like OoT (except darker/creepier), but pulled lower sales numbers.

[darkjak]

I like that Nintendo tries something different with Zelda, given that the gameplay has to remain pretty similar for each game they can't always have the same mechanics from game to game.

Being a bit different is good. Being all over the place, while allowing core mechanics to grow archaic isn't.

What does it matter if at the time it freaked fans out? Wind Waker's art style is critically acclaimed now, everyone loves it and it looks stunning. The graphics were ahead of their time and they still stand up today and will do for a long time.

Is it now?

It's still controversial and there are still many who absolutely hate it.

 

So you want a horse on the open sea with 3 day time travel thrown in? All because it needs to keep certain arbitrary mechanics from past games to maintain a hazy semblance of "evolution"?

The sailing mechanics and the way the overworld in Wind Waker works was a complete mistake. Horse riding is a staple of the franchise (and should be in every Zelda) and the 3-day mechanic could... well, evolve.

Time moving even when you're in a town and NPC's doing different things at different times of day (as opposed to doing one thing during day and suddenly doing something different one minute after sunset) and different things during different days of the week could be really interresting.

 

Looks pretty bad nowadays though doesn't it. As for multiplayer, of course it does, that fits in with GTA's gameplay, unlike Zelda.

Actually, GTA IV looks fine. I'd even go as far as to say that, while a bit dated even Vice City looks good to this day.

But horses belong on the open sea, re: your earlier point about a missing riding mechanic in Wind Waker?

As I've said before: I don't like the world design in WW.

 

Do you have any idea how flimsy this argument sounds? You praise GTA for 'improved physics' and 'airplanes are back', yet ignore the ground-breaking motion controls for combat in Skyward Sword or the fact that 'the horse is back'.

I didn't:

"The motion controlls which were supposed to be the unique selling point is ruined due to the annoying enemy design."

So what? Did wolves belong in Skyward Sword? And fyi, there was a boat mechanic in Skyward Sword and the combat was most certainly an evolution from TP.

Wolves didn't belong in Twiligt Princess. Seriously, that gameplay was a royal chore and whenever I was forced to enter wolf mode, I couldn't wait until that segment would end.

You can question a lot of Nintendo's decisions, but their art styles? Really?

Absolutely. What they're doing is to constantly split the fanbase into smaller and smaller camps. By now, we have people who want toony graphics, realistic graphics, something inbetween and something different.

This problem wouldn't exist if Nintendo had just stuck to the OoT-style.

So let me make sure I'm clear on this, to you Zelda U needs to include a two time periods, a musical instrument that lets you control time, masks that allow you to transform, a boat that lets you sail the open seas, a companion that lets you transform into a wolf, motion controls, a bird and a horse for transport. And putting all of that into Zelda U will show that they're "evolving" Zelda? Gotcha.

Zelda U should contain the staples that define Zelda, and only make changes they intend to keep in future games, perhaps apart from specific items. Like I said, in GTA, they removed the whole muscle-building mechanic from San Andreas, because gamers didn't like it. But in all probability, Rockstar intended that it was going to be a future staple of the franchise at the time they implemented it.

 

Every GTA game feels the same, conversely every Zelda game feels and plays differently, that's a good thing.

Are you joking? Go back to Vice City and you'll find some over the top weapons, like chainsaws and gattling guns. Characters and mission objectives are also at time quite ridiculous. In GTA 5, you'll find a more restrained range of weapons. They make slight adjustments in the direction of the franchise, but it's still not all over the place like Zelda.

 

As a contrast, Zelda while feeling different, feels older for each entry.

 

It sounds to me like you'd prefer Nintendo to release Ocarina of Time 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. That's not what they're trying to do, unlike what GTA is trying to be. Each Zelda game is supposed to be a standalone adventure with different mechanics.

It's not like Zelda is like Call of Duty or Assassins Creed, where we get at least one game a year. We get one, PERHAPS two entries per generation. Thus, just setting a direction for the franchise and sticking with it doesen't prevent games feeling different from each other.

 

And since there are two Zeldas per console, they could release a "conventional" Zelda first, then a "weird" Zelda after, if they have time and resources for a second Zelda.

[Grazza]

I wouldn't criticise TP for "being too much like OoT", but I would criticise it for "Being like OoT, but only superficially". And there were many who criticised TP on actual game content (like the empty/segmented overworld, redundant items, boring twilight segments, rupee inflation, etc.).

 

Agreed, but we're aficionados, Jonnas. We see things like that, but I still say, on a broad scale, Twilight Princess was basically what people wanted. It's got loads of flaws, but the basic idea - running round a solid overworld as Adult Link - was the right one.

 

In the end, its sales are really only a reflection of how well it was marketed. Majora's Mask literally looked exactly like OoT (except darker/creepier), but pulled lower sales numbers.

 

Good point. Majora's Mask is definitely the biggest mystery on the list - how can it go from the massive-selling OOT to the low-interest MM? I can only put myself back into the mindset I had at the time Majora's Mask was unveiled, which was "This doesn't have Adult Link in it?" I also know a significant amount of people who didn't like the time limit (not the 3-day cycle specifically, just the feeling of being rushed). Overall, I feel there were enough clues to know MM wasn't going to be an OOT-sized hit.

[Ronnie]

Being a bit different is good. Being all over the place, while allowing core mechanics to grow archaic isn't.

 

That's just your opinion. I love the variety in my Zelda games, gives each one a distinct feel. The core mechanics are hardly archaic, they're what makes the series special, and it's clear Nintendo are trying to look into the core gameplay in ALBW and Zelda U.

 

Is it now?

It's still controversial and there are still many who absolutely hate it.

 

A close-minded minority, thankfully. Not "many". It WAS controversial, but when people saw how beautifully Nintendo executed it, the vast majority fell in love and now that game is actually celebrated for its art style.

 

The sailing mechanics and the way the overworld in Wind Waker works was a complete mistake.

 

Again, in your opinion. It was a return to the "go anywhere" mechanic that made the original LOZ such a hit. I adored the overworld in Wind Waker, it made me feel like I was on an adventure.

 

Horse riding is a staple of the franchise (and should be in every Zelda)

 

So much so that it wasn't present in the first four games of the series and has only been included in three out of sixteen.

 

and the 3-day mechanic could... well, evolve.

 

*interest and attention in your post dwindling…*

 

Actually, GTA IV looks fine.

 

If you think that Vice City screenshot looks good, then I can't imagine I will ever convince you of anything.

 

I didn't:

"The motion controlls which were supposed to be the unique selling point is ruined due to the annoying enemy design."

 

Annoying enemy design in what way? How were they annoying?

 

Wolves didn't belong in Twiligt Princess. Seriously, that gameplay was a royal chore and whenever I was forced to enter wolf mode, I couldn't wait until that segment would end.

 

It's starting to sound like Zelda (or Nintendo games in general) just isn't for you. Lazy, predictable, samey, repetitive sequels might be more your thing.

 

Absolutely. What they're doing is to constantly split the fanbase into smaller and smaller camps. By now, we have people who want toony graphics, realistic graphics, something inbetween and something different.

This problem wouldn't exist if Nintendo had just stuck to the OoT-style.

 

What are you talking about? You honestly would prefer Nintendo to just stick to the exact same art style, in all their games, and not try anything new ever? Nintendo are the masters of art style. Ok Yoshi's New Island apart, their games are stunning. I'm personally not in any particular camp, I trust Nintendo to deliver a gorgeous game, and 99% of the time, they do.

 

Zelda U should contain the staples that define Zelda, and only make changes they intend to keep in future games

 

Oh to have that kind of foresight, I'd love to be able to look 5 years into the future.

 

Are you joking? Go back to Vice City and you'll find some over the top weapons, like chainsaws and gattling guns. Characters and mission objectives are also at time quite ridiculous. In GTA 5, you'll find a more restrained range of weapons. They make slight adjustments in the direction of the franchise, but it's still not all over the place like Zelda.

 

Proved my point nicely. GTA's differences can be summed up in the type of weapons each iteration has. Stunning gameplay variety there.

 

they could release a "conventional" Zelda first, then a "weird" Zelda after, if they have time and resources for a second Zelda.

 

How about they just concentrate on building the best Zelda game they can manage?

[EEVILMURRAY]

Just wanna throw my hat into the Wind Waker having no-so-great graphics for the series and the sailing being boring as fuck. Even with the Swift Sail I found it a chore.

[The Peeps]

Proved my point nicely. GTA's differences can be summed up in the type of weapons each iteration has. Stunning gameplay variety there.

 

I'm not particularly a fan of GTA but this sentence has to be the most narrow-minded thing I've ever read on this forum.

[Ronnie]

I'm not particularly a fan of GTA but this sentence has to be the most narrow-minded thing I've ever read on this forum.

 

It was directed at @darkjak's comment about the differences between each GTA, not the games themselves.

[The Peeps]

If that's the case, I fully retract my statement.

[darkjak]

Again, in your opinion. It was a return to the "go anywhere" mechanic that made the original LOZ such a hit. I adored the overworld in Wind Waker, it made me feel like I was on an adventure.

They could have done "go anywhere" without an ocean. Just Cause was available for that generation of consoles.

 

So much so that it wasn't present in the first four games of the series and has only been included in three out of sixteen.

Or you could say that since her first appearance, Epona has been in all but two home console Zeldas.

 

It is a staple. When people think of Zelda, they think of adult Link, riding Epona over Hyrule Field, trying to take out Ganon/Ganondorf. That's not what's in every Zelda, but that's what people think of.

Just like movie-goers think of X-wings when you say Star Wars, even though it was only present in half of the movies. Like 80's buffs think of a white Ferrari Testarossa when they think of Miami Vice, although Crockett drove a black Daytona Convertible during the first two seasons.

*interest and attention in your post dwindling…*

I'm surprised that you thought this of that particular statement. Do you not seriously see how making time and weekdays affect NPC's is a natural evolution of the day-night cycle?

Would you not trade the wolf for more living inhabitants in TP?

If you think that Vice City screenshot looks good, then I can't imagine I will ever convince you of anything.

I never said it looks good. I said it looks fine. As in you can play it today without thinking of how ugly everything is.

Annoying enemy design in what way? How were they annoying?

The way you had to swing your sword in a very specific way. You barelly had the time to stretch your arm out to swing before they applied a different block.

Wouldn't it be glorious if Nintendo used motion controls to make it actually feel like you're fighting a worthy opponent, rather than a walking "puzzle" (term used extremely loosely)?

It's starting to sound like Zelda (or Nintendo games in general) just isn't for you. Lazy, predictable, samey, repetitive sequels might be more your thing.

Would you say that the Mass Effect, Elder Scroll and GTA games are samey and lazy? More so than the New Mario Bros games? Because that's the kind of sequels I want to see (although Mass Effect actually DEvolved in some respects, which I dislike).

What are you talking about? You honestly would prefer Nintendo to just stick to the exact same art style, in all their games, and not try anything new ever? Nintendo are the masters of art style. Ok Yoshi's New Island apart, their games are stunning. I'm personally not in any particular camp, I trust Nintendo to deliver a gorgeous game, and 99% of the time, they do.

I'm really impressed with Nintendos art styles when it comes to the clay-look in Kirby and the yarn in the new Yoshi. Splatoon looks brilliant, as does Mario Kart 8 and Mario Galaxy.

But when it comes to Zelda, the changes are unnecessary and annoying.

Oh to have that kind of foresight, I'd love to be able to look 5 years into the future.

It's not a question of foresight, it's an ability to distinguish valuable gameplay mechanics and design choices from gimmicks.

Proved my point nicely. GTA's differences can be summed up in the type of weapons each iteration has. Stunning gameplay variety there.

It's the combat and the mission structures that create variety. If you claim they feel the same, bland or repetitive, you probably haven't played them in-depth.

How about they just concentrate on building the best Zelda game they can manage?

Yes, that's where I'm getting at.

Focus on making BETTER Zelda games, rather than DIFFERENT Zelda games.

And from what I've seen and heard so far from Zelda U, that's exactly what they're doing.

[Ronnie]

Let me ask you something, why does it matter so much to you that each game is similar to the last one? Why does each one have to have a horse, and each one has to have similar items, and combat mechanics, and be set in the same land? Does that sort of thing honestly excite you? The same game just slightly tweaked with each instalment? Don't you think that seems a bit superficial and generic? That's what GTA and a lot of other AAA games are good for, not one of Nintendo's flagship titles.

 

Does that mean in your ideal world, the 2D wall painting mechanic of ALBW shouldn't have been there? We should have had a game where you travel through Hyrule on trains? Or better yet, trains wouldn't have been in Spirit Tracks, or Linebeck's boat in Phantom Hourglass because in every Zelda game we would be traversing the same land of Hyrule on horseback, with no game-diferentiating mechanics to tell each instalment apart.

 

I suspect it would have lost interest a very long time ago.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Ronnie

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

I have to wonder though, how many fans complained TP was too similar to OOT compared to the amount who actually bought it? It must be a tiny percentage. What TP achieved is that it got almost 9m people excited enough to stump up the money for it.

 

If you look at the less successful titles in that list, their low sales were totally predictable. Whilst I preferred Spirit Tracks to Phantom Hourglass, there was no hype for it in advance. Skyward Sword was not highly anticipated and, although it got good reviews, it now seems to be judged in line with its pre-hype. A Link Between Worlds is an excellent game, but I honestly wasn't very excited about it in advance, and certainly didn't buy the 3DS for it (I'd already bought two!)

 

What I'm saying is that I think there's a lesson here. The higher sales are from when Nintendo went all-out to make the best possible game for the system, and fans were desperate to get their hands on them.

 

Like Jonnas said, I think its a fair few amount. I'm guessing it sold so well because that was the first time seeing Zelda in an un-hinged "next-gen", non-toony state. It was hotly anticipated moreso for that (sadly). TP also being a launch Wii title AND a GC title surely made it very receptive.

 

 

I dont really think Ninty went all out on TP...Marketing for a next-gen graphics, OOT successor + being a launch title + the imaginative possibilities of waggle = success.

 

So really it was graphics + gimmick + perfect timing.

Edited July 6, 2014 by King_V

[EEVILMURRAY]

It is a staple. When people think of Zelda, they think of adult Link, riding Epona over Hyrule Field, trying to take out Ganon/Ganondorf. That's not what's in every Zelda, but that's what people think of.

Since when? I don't think of that at all.

 

Just like movie-goers think of X-wings when you say Star Wars, even though it was only present in half of the movies.

That's a pretty piss poor argument, there is X-Wing action in nearly all the films (Phantom Menace doesn't have them I think and you can see the earlier models the Clones use). You could say the same about anything in Star Wars using that logic. I would hazard to say there is less time in lightsaber battles (Especially in the original trilogy), Ewoks don't feature for long. Jabba the Hutt. Podracing, but people still think of Star Wars.

The way you had to swing your sword in a very specific way. You barelly had the time to stretch your arm out to swing before they applied a different block.

Wouldn't it be glorious if Nintendo used motion controls to make it actually feel like you're fighting a worthy opponent, rather than a walking "puzzle" (term used extremely loosely)?

I agree with this though, when the gap is on the left side I have to quickly move my right hand to the left in order to swipe through the gap. However it thinks I'm swiping right to left when this happens which then hits the blocked area. Only with slow movements could you do it properly.

[darkjak]

Let me ask you something, why does it matter so much to you that each game is similar to the last one? Why does each one have to have a horse, and each one has to have similar items, and combat mechanics, and be set in the same land? Does that sort of thing honestly excite you? The same game just slightly tweaked with each instalment? Don't you think that seems a bit superficial and generic? That's what GTA and a lot of other AAA games are good for, not one of Nintendo's flagship titles.

 

I am not saying things should be the same. Evolution does not mean that things are the same. In some respects, I want Zelda to change more than it has so far.

 

Let me put it like this: if Nintendo were to evolve the time from Majora's Mask even further like I said, then that could be a great staple of the series. It would have been amazing to just stand around and watch the day pass by as NPC's go about their day in Hyrule Castle Town.

By the time Twilight Princess came out, there was absolutely no need for any loading screens, there was no need to split the overworld into sections. There were already open-world games like Just Cause and GTA: San Andreas, so clearly it wasn't a question of performance.

The combat in OoT was fenomenal, so adding more enemies that require the full range of attacks and blocks would be great. And of course, making that combat system further more intricate and deep

Further evolving horseback combat, making it a pleasing and practical way of fighting enemies is something I'd like to see.

Voice acting is a must by now, Link himself should of course remain mute. Perhaps the player should be allowed to make decisions which effect the story. The ability to take care of dungeons in any order you want seems also an evolution.

 

Are those changes superficial and generic?

[dazzybee]

Yeah, I'm sorry @darkjak but my eyes rolled back so many times reading your post, but Ronnie said it all...

 

I did find it funny how you seemed to criticise Twilight Princess for not using any of the other mechanics and introducing the new wolf one... Hilarious. GTA has been the same game slightly evolved since 3 and you seemed to think this is amazing, Zelda, admittedly by you, changes it's main mechanic pretty much every game but this is bad?!?

 

In fact, all this shows how much Nintendo DO change their core games so much (when people slag nintendo off all the time for no new IP's and franchise fatigue etc)...

[Hero-of-Time]

GTA has been the same game slightly evolved since 3

 

Slightly evolved is a pretty harsh statement. Look at what you could do on GTA3 and then compare it with what you can do on GTAV. It's quite staggering how far Rockstar have come in creating a living, breathing sandbox.

[Sheikah]

I'm not particularly a fan of GTA but this sentence has to be the most narrow-minded thing I've ever read on this forum.

 

Very much so.

 

To be honest the arguments on either side here are pretty weak. As usual Ronnie seems to have no clue about non-Nintendo games, but on the other hand is defending pretty well against the comments about Zelda not evolving because the arguments being made aren't very good.

 

My desire for Zelda is for them not to enforce the same mechanics every game (same horse, bird, time travel) like they are already doing but to considerably re-evaluate much of what they do repeat. The same sort of story (Ganondorf / Triforce / Master Sword), battle mechanics, dungeon mechanics and various gameplay mechanics (20 hearts and various heart piece quests). I sincerely believe they can make these changes without destroying the Zelda theme. My favourite Zelda is Majora's Mask, which funnily enough said nuts to the Triforce, Zelda, Ganondorf and the Master Sword, while having the ability to play as other races. Neato!

 

While the usual elements have made for some great games there comes a point where you've experienced that sort of thing so many times that you think "come on, try something new!". Maybe they are doing that now with the new open world Zelda, which looks like a step in the right direction, but time shall tell!

Edited July 6, 2014 by Sheikah

[Grazza]

I dont really think Ninty went all out on TP...Marketing for a next-gen graphics, OOT successor + being a launch title + the imaginative possibilities of waggle = success.

 

With respect, I'd dismiss launch title and waggle as part of its appeal, as people were as hyped as could be before either of those were an aspect (ie. when we thought it was a GameCube game). I agree about next gen graphics, but only as far as 'realistic style on GC over N64', as the Wii didn't play a part in that.

 

What I mean by 'all-out' is that someone at Nintendo really used their instinct to conceive an exciting game. However much the finished product could have done with tweaking, the basic idea for the game was so pure and instinctive, and struck at the core of many people.

 

As for the debate, @darkjak really makes some good points. The irony, though is that the game he dislikes - Wind Waker - proves his point best! It truly is an evolution. Functionally, the game is very like Ocarina of Time - elemental arrows (and therefore puzzles), Power Bracelets (which reveal previously inaccessible holes), shield control (and therefore the Mirror Shield)...

 

Also, I think there's a distinction between grand concepts like Wind Waker and dispensable gimmicks. The whole point of Wind Waker is that it's a sea adventure! Complaining there's not a horse is like having a Zelda set underground and complaining there's no boat. Nintendo must be free to carry out these visions... when they have them.

 

At other times, I must admit I would like a bit more tradition. I was once discussing with a friend how every time there's a massive leap in graphics, I am eager to see how the new console can portray Hyrule Castle, Ganon etc. It doesn't mean every Zelda has to the same, although I think there's a lot of merit in the 'two Zeldas per console, alternating traditional and quirky' model.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

To be honest the arguments on either side here are pretty weak. As usual Ronnie seems to have no clue about non-Nintendo games, but on the other hand is defending pretty well against the comments about Zelda not evolving because the arguments being made aren't very good.

 

 

Would'a listen to this guy - please create a worthy argument O' keyboard warrior.

[Sheikah]

Would'a listen to this guy - please create a worthy argument O' keyboard warrior.

I just did, you silly sod.

 

Some people...

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

I just did, you silly sod.

 

Some people...

 

It wasn't strong enough, sorry.

 

...Annoying isn't it? Well thats how you sound when you feel you have to belittle peoples point of view/expression, like as if you have something more valid to say.

Edited July 6, 2014 by King_V

[Jonnas]

Good point. Majora's Mask is definitely the biggest mystery on the list - how can it go from the massive-selling OOT to the low-interest MM? I can only put myself back into the mindset I had at the time Majora's Mask was unveiled, which was "This doesn't have Adult Link in it?" I also know a significant amount of people who didn't like the time limit (not the 3-day cycle specifically, just the feeling of being rushed). Overall, I feel there were enough clues to know MM wasn't going to be an OOT-sized hit.

 

I think it was more along the lines of:

 

-It came out near the end of the N64's life, therefore, the amount of newcomers willing to get into Zelda was quite small. Most people buying MM would've been OoT fans in the first place...

-...and fans who would be willing to play more Zelda! This percentage tends to be smaller than one would expect.

-Finally, MM needed a Memory Pak. I know this stopped me from getting it at the time, since that accessory wasn't easy to find.

 

So yeah, quite a few points against it, regardless of the game's content.

 

With respect, I'd dismiss launch title and waggle as part of its appeal, as people were as hyped as could be before either of those were an aspect (ie. when we thought it was a GameCube game). I agree about next gen graphics, but only as far as 'realistic style on GC over N64', as the Wii didn't play a part in that.

 

I think being a launch title of the Wii was significant. The Wii had a successful launch, and if you ask around the internet, plenty of people now will say TP was their first Zelda. Much like what happened with OoT, a generation before (a human generation, not a console generation).

 

It's easy to forget, but the chunk of people who never played Zelda before is bigger than the repeat customer. It's just not as easy to attract.

[Sheikah]

It wasn't strong enough, sorry.

 

...Annoying isn't it? Well thats how you sound when you feel you have to belittle peoples point of view/expression, like as if you have something more valid to say.

 

No, people get butthurt because they don't like it when people point out the flaws in their argument or an argument they support. People agreeing with the flawed argument deflect the points using poor ad hominem like you just did rather than actually addressing the post. Poor show, King V, but not really at all unexpected from you.

 

The argument that Zelda should keep absorbing every mechanic of its predecessors isn't great, so I agree with Ronnie there. It would mean the games would become convoluted while not actually changing the mechanics of the game. Given most Zelda games have changed the mode of travel, it's not even possible to incorporate them all.

 

That's all well and great, but then Ronnie makes the excruciatingly out of touch comments about GTA. Neither side argues the point well.

 

Rather than knock down a bad argument, I proposed what I did want to see changed in Zelda, all of which I think are fully achievable without making the game convoluted. All the while saying that difference certainly helped Majora's Mask, and importantly, that I think the new Zelda looks like it could be taking the right steps.

 

Yet of course, meaningful discussion is ignored.

 

I think it was more along the lines of:

 

-It came out near the end of the N64's life, therefore, the amount of newcomers willing to get into Zelda was quite small. Most people buying MM would've been OoT fans in the first place...

-...and fans who would be willing to play more Zelda! This percentage tends to be smaller than one would expect.

-Finally, MM needed a Memory Pak. I know this stopped me from getting it at the time, since that accessory wasn't easy to find.

 

So yeah, quite a few points against it, regardless of the game's content.

 

I think as well Majora's Mask reviewed lower at the time and had a reputation for being difficult with the time system.

 

It's funny what people think at the time compared to how they do now. Same with Wind Waker... thought of as odd at the time and widely revered later.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Sheikah

[dazzybee]

Slightly evolved is a pretty harsh statement. Look at what you could do on GTA3 and then compare it with what you can do on GTAV. It's quite staggering how far Rockstar have come in creating a living, breathing sandbox.

 

Hmmm, maybe it's because I haven't played 3 in such a long time, in my memory the things you can do is barely different... I also utterly detest the games.... I get suckered in every time, then remember why I hate them. The most immature writing and characterisation in gaming. They would be an embarrassment if they were films. They'd make Bay look like Orson Welles

[Hero-of-Time]

Hmmm, maybe it's because I haven't played 3 in such a long time, in my memory the things you can do is barely different... I also utterly detest the games.... I get suckered in every time, then remember why I hate them. The most immature writing and characterisation in gaming. They would be an embarrassment if they were films. They'd make Bay look like Orson Welles

 

Bay makes good popcorn flicks that aren't meant to be taken seriously, much like GTA. In fact, GTAIV went with a more serious tone and fans didn't really care for it. The a DLC stories were much better by all accounts ( only finished Lost and Damned ).

 

I never picked up GTAV as I got burned by the fourth one. Too big, too boring.