darkjak Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 When Aounuma took over the Zelda franchise, noone really spoke about him, and he rarelly participated in interviews. Focus was still firmly on Miyamoto. I have always been under the impression that Zelda has substantially dropped in quality since Majoras Mask. And with recent Aonuma interviews, I've been jojoed from agreeing with him to questioning if the man should have a restraining order against anyone who has anything to have a say in Zelda. I completely agree with him when he shot down Miyamotos idea of releasing a new Zelda every year, and I am interrested in his claims of making Zelda more open. However, when he stated that the Gamecube tech demo wasn't Zelda to him, that it wasn't different enough is troublesome. It seems to me that he's quite obsessed with changing things just for the sake of change. And that's a problem. I'd like to compare Zelda with Grand Theft Auto. The GTA games have continuously received higher and higher scores, with the last few being strong contenders for Game of the Year. As was the history with Zelda, up until Majoras Mask. The answer as to why is quite simple: Grand Theft Auto has evolved over the years. No revolution, just pure, simple and natural evolution. Focus has been to make GTA BETTER, not DIFFERENT. Zelda did the same under Miyamoto, with the one (and subsequently least appreciated of his Zeldas) being Zelda II, with A Ling to the Past having smoother combat, better graphics and a better story, Ocarina of Time made Zelda 3D and Majora's Mask took the time system from OoT and improved it, creating a world where NPC's did different things depending on what time and day it was. With Wind Waker, Aounuma brought in sailing and shocking graphics and with Skyward Sword he made every fight a frustrating puzzle, where he, rather than using motion controls to enhance immersion, made combat a struggle more against the limitations of motion controls, than against well balanced enemies and DEvolved Zelda by removing the illusion of a seamless world, in favor of seperate levels. This wasn't helped by Zelda being old-fashioned due to the two previous games already having lagged too far behind. The one time he tried to make a simple evolution of the franchise, Twilight Princess, he failed miserably. Hyrule was transformed into a bunch of narrow corridors, he skipped voice acting and most items were only ever used in the dungeon you found it in, making the puzzles to easy and predictable. So, what do you think? Has Aonuma been good for Zelda, or should he be replaced? *Edit* Ooops, the title is supposed to be 'Aonuma right for Zelda?'.
Ronnie Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 I don't think he's obsessed with changing things for the sake of it at all. If anything he's been too scared to change ever since the ridiculous backlash at Wind Waker. Zelda's since then have felt very samey. I can see his point about the GameCube tech demo, looked a bit generic and forgettable, especially by today's standards. What we actually got in the end was glorious and timeless by comparison. I think he knows what he's doing but I would like them to start taking risks again which have been more or less absent since WW.
Blade Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 In my opinion Zelda has not "substantially" decreased in quality since MM at all. I always find that every game has something different in to make the series continuously evolve. Did people want OoT every single time? It seems with the Zelda series that he is damned if he changes something and damned if he doesnt.
Sheikah Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Has every Zelda game after MM been substantially worse? Without a doubt. But then you're not going to make a better game by conforming to mostly the same formula and construct each time. They do need something pretty different, but it also has to be brilliant.
Fused King Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Has every Zelda game after MM been substantially worse? Without a doubt. Not a fact, my good sir, not a fact. Purely subjective. The only time Aonuma hurt me a little was when he made all these interesting promises about Skyward Sword which really weren't present in the game in the way he talked about it. Aonuma has admitted this himself. Now he is renewing my hope by saying that he now thinks that it might be fun for gamers to get a little stuck (no more Fi-like handholding! ). The non-linear style of the upcoming Zelda also shows that he might just be going back to the Zelda roots: exploring in an unlimited way. I sincerely hope that Zelda WiiU will be some sort of an open-world experience, because crafty dungeons and ' unrestricted' exploration should be at the core of any Zelda. And that is why The Wind Waker is still my all time favourite Zelda game.
Jonnas Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 If you think the Zelda series has been dropping in quality, it has little to do with them changing things for the sake of it (especially since TP hardly qualifies for that description). Any series needs to experiment with different things in order to get better, GTA included, but none of the changes in the Zelda series have been drastic (other than, you know, Majora's Mask). Furthermore, remember that "MM was the last great Zelda" is far from an universal opinion. Plenty of us think Wind Waker was one of the best games of all time. To answer the question that started the topic: I think Aonuma can be trusted with the franchise, he just needs to push his view of what the series should be more often. Bringing an outside perspective wouldn't hurt, of course (see: Oracles, Minish Cap), but if anyone must be responsible for what the series is and becomes, and protect its integrity, Aonuma is the right man for the job, I think.
Sheikah Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 I think WW was a good game but held up largely by its visual style and existing popularised game mechanics. I know lots of people here wax lyrical about it, but for me the sailing was pretty dull and monotonous, and the NPCs and sidequests pretty bland/sparse.
Zechs Merquise Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 I have always been under the impression that Zelda has substantially dropped in quality since Majoras Mask. Has every Zelda game after MM been substantially worse? Without a doubt. Some really pompous and silly remarks to start this 'debate' off! The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - 97.54% The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask - 91.95% The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker - 94.43% The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (GC) - 95.00% The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii) - 94.58% The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword - 93.25% Those are the critical averages from Gamerankings for the the 3D home console Zelda games. I don't see any 'substantial' drop in quality since Majora's Mask. In fact, I see a game that has maintained an average of over 90%for the last 5 game releases! I love it when a couple of people who obviously have a dislike for something come in with sweeping statements that masquerade as 'fact' and then spark a debate over the matter. What's more, critics actually feel Majora's Mask was the weakest of the 3D home console games. Just because you think something has got substantially worse, doesn't mean it actually has in everyone else's eyes.
Sheikah Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) Using critic scores, are you having a laugh? Since when do they count for anything? GTAIV is one of the highest ranking games of all time - do people think it's the best game of all time? Fuck no. And I sincerely doubt most people here would agree all the latest Zeldas top MM. Edited October 27, 2013 by Sheikah
darkjak Posted October 27, 2013 Author Posted October 27, 2013 In my opinion Zelda has not "substantially" decreased in quality since MM at all. I always find that every game has something different in to make the series continuously evolve. Did people want OoT every single time? It seems with the Zelda series that he is damned if he changes something and damned if he doesnt. It's true that quality hasn't de-facto decreased. If it was 1998, and I was given the possibility to choose between OoT, MM, WW, TP or SS, I don't know which I'd have chosen. But at the same time, if wouldn't have played any Zelda prior to SS, I would perhaps not have been any more interrested in Zelda as a franchise than I am let's say Tomb Raider. In other words: Ocarina was amazing FOR ITS TIME. And to a large extent, the formula hasn't been kept up to date. IMHO, Aonuma has spent too much time revolutionizing and too little evolving. I know some see it as blasphemy, but Ocarina of Time could be excused for not having voice acting, due to space limits. Wind Waker and Twiligt Princess, not so much. He's damned because he keeps on changing directions all the time. He introduces interresting ideas but doesen't perfect them and then doesen't reuse the idea and improve it. Thus we have the motion controls in Skyward Sword that are frustrating (which he has said he won't use again), we have the living world in Majora's Mask that only spans three days, but with large discs could've been expanded on. And because he's changed the direction so much, everyone's got their favorite direction, so the longer he'll keep going, the fewer people will be satisfied. Has every Zelda game after MM been substantially worse? Without a doubt. But then you're not going to make a better game by conforming to mostly the same formula and construct each time. They do need something pretty different, but it also has to be brilliant. Look at the GTA games. The formula hasn't changed as much as it has evolved. That's what I would like to see from Zelda. If Aonuma introduce a new mechanic, like the living world in Majora's Mask, and it's appreciated by fans, then KEEP IT. What defines Zelda to me is that every home console entry is supposed to be rated as the best game in the world when it's released. While Zelda has taken bold steps within certain areas, it's stood still in others, making the heart of the game feel archaic. Aonuma needs to take a good, solid look at what Zelda is up against and then think really hard on how he can out-do the competition, naturally without being a copy-cat. Make Hyrule Castle-town as big and living as Assassins Creed, make the player love the characters as in Mass Effect and make horseback riding as useful and fun as in Red Dead Redemption. Nintendo have the cash, they have the tallent (and if they need more, they have THOUSANDS of skilled workers begging to work for them across the globe), so:
Sheikah Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Look at the GTA games. The formula hasn't changed as much as it has evolved. That's what I would like to see from Zelda. If Aonuma i Whuuut... I am shocked - you think Zelda changes too much? I think it's way too conserved in the ways that matter (in terms of dungeon exploring, gameplay progression, much of the weapon and item recurrence, story elements).
Zechs Merquise Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Using critic scores, are you having a laugh? Since when do they count for anything? GTAIV is one of the highest ranking games of all time - do people think it's the best game of all time? Fuck no. And I sincerely doubt most people here would agree all the latest Zeldas top MM. Hahahahaha! How ludicrous. So you think an average of critic scores is basically meaningless, but because you personally think Majora's Mask is better than Wind Waker or Twilight Princess it's some consensus held across the gaming world? Truly astounding logic there. I for one happen to think Majora's Mask was the weakest of the 3D Zelda games. I never liked the timer, didn't appreciate the smaller world and always felt rushed rather than having time to explore freely. But I am not going to suggest that everyone feels that way.
Sheikah Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) Hahahahaha! How ludicrous. So you don't think an average of critic scores is basically meaningless, but because you personally think Majora's Mask is better than Wind Waker or Twilight Princess it's some consensus held across the gaming world. Truly astounding logic there. I for one happen to think Majora's Mask was the weakest of the 3D Zelda games. I never liked the timer, didn't appreciate the smaller world and always felt rushed rather than having time to explore freely. But I am not going to suggest that everyone feels that way. Tell me why a bunch of 30 people's opinions are worth any more than 30 people on here. Tell me how accurate critic opinion can be if GTAIV is one of the highest rated games of all time when it never wins top game of all time polls on GameFAQs (where tens of thousands of users participate) Here may be a shocking truth for you... Critic opinion can be very arbitrary and heavily influenced by hype, and most of all; they're not always comparble! A game ranked 10 years ago doesn't necessarily exist on the same scale as a game ranked 10 years later on an entirely different console. Scores are often super inflated these days anyway. Edited October 27, 2013 by Sheikah
Tamazoid Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Hahahahaha! How ludicrous. So you think an average of critic scores is basically meaningless, but because you personally think Majora's Mask is better than Wind Waker or Twilight Princess it's some consensus held across the gaming world? Truly astounding logic there. I for one happen to think Majora's Mask was the weakest of the 3D Zelda games. I never liked the timer, didn't appreciate the smaller world and always felt rushed rather than having time to explore freely. But I am not going to suggest that everyone feels that way. I agree, I have never been able to get into Majora's Mask, and back in the day when I had the choice between replaying OoT again or trying to complete Majora's Mask I chose OoT almost every time. But then again, I think Twilight Princess is a mediocre game while Skyward Sword is one of my favourite games this generation. The problem with the Zelda series in my opinion is that unlike GTA it is a mesh of gameplay ideas, exploration, combat, puzzles etc. Different gamers appreciate different aspects of the formula and think they should be prioritised whereas in GTA it generally plays it safe in the sand box genre, just increasing the interactivity and the graphics in each installment. Like the OP, some people think the motion controls were a chore in SS while people like myself think they were an innovation and added to the overall appeal of the game. I'd argue that Majora's Mask hardly "improved" the OoT formula as the dungeon design (well the ones I have seen) are subpar when compared to the rest of the series. Whenever people praise Majora's Mask they rarely mention the dungeons, they focus on the sidequests and the NPCs.
Zechs Merquise Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Tell me why a bunch of 30 people's opinions are worth any more than 30 people on here. Tell me how accurate critic opinion can be if GTAIV is one of the highest rated games of all time when it never wins top game of all time polls on GameFAQs (where tens of thousands of users participate) Here may be a shocking truth for you... Critic opinion can be very arbitrary and heavily influenced by hype, and most of all; they're not always comparble! A game ranked 10 years ago doesn't necessarily exist on the same scale as a game ranked 10 years later on an entirely different console. Scores are often super inflated these days anyway. And here is the 'shocking truth' for you... the critic scores will be looked at for years to come. Because like it or not they are industry professionals. Hence their opinion is actually more important than yours as it is kept as a record of critical opinion at the time the game was released. Just in the same way that movie critics thoughts are more important than yours, because in years to come when people read summaries of films of Wikipedia they will look at what critics at the time thought, not what some bitter fanboy on a forum thought! And the reason GTAV or COD:MW2 or BF3 don't win anything over at Gamefaqs, is because Gamefaqs is a self selecting community of nerds who live for playing JRPGs and sit chatting about them all day on dedicated forums. The people who ensure games like GTAV and COD:MW2 sell far more than any of the 'beloved games' on Gamefaqs probably don't even know Gamefaqs exists - because gaming isn't their life. They are casual gamers who pick up GTA, FIFA, COD and NFS but don't give two shits about whether Cloud is going to beat Link in character battle 74 or whatever it is this year!
Sheikah Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) Who cares if you look back at so called 'professional' critic reviews in years to come and think that they matter the most? All this shows is that you are entirely sucker to critic opinion. And I find that pretty shallow, albeit unsurprising. What people think about gaming is entirely subjective - there is no 'professional' or 'correct' or 'more valued' view to have. You could get everyone on this forum to rank all the 3D Zelda titles (I'm pretty certain MM would not be at the bottom of the list at the end). There's no reason why their views are any less important. In fact, a lot of people on this forum are professionals who write reviews for N-E all the time. You want the truth? MM was released after OoT. It's not difficult to see why it generally scored lower - a lower score purposefully differentiated it from the groundbreaking/universally popular predecessor. It was reviewed maybe 10 years before some of the more recent Zelda titles. You're comparing scores (for what reason, I'm not really sure) that aren't really comparable in the first place. Pretty daft, really. EDIT: UNFFF. Well done Zechs! You trolled me again into discussion...not next time! Out of curiosity, I metacritic'd a few of these games and found the reverse to be true (Majora's Mask beating/roughly equaling most of the other more recent Zelda games). So pretty much, the general critic opinion is pretty divided/useless to use in your arguments. It only works if you look at the one ranking database to suit your argument. Edited October 27, 2013 by Sheikah
Magnus Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Some really pompous and silly remarks to start this 'debate' off! The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - 97.54% The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask - 91.95% The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker - 94.43% The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (GC) - 95.00% The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii) - 94.58% The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword - 93.25% Those are the critical averages from Gamerankings for the the 3D home console Zelda games. I don't see any 'substantial' drop in quality since Majora's Mask. In fact, I see a game that has maintained an average of over 90%for the last 5 game releases! I love it when a couple of people who obviously have a dislike for something come in with sweeping statements that masquerade as 'fact' and then spark a debate over the matter. What's more, critics actually feel Majora's Mask was the weakest of the 3D home console games. Just because you think something has got substantially worse, doesn't mean it actually has in everyone else's eyes. The problem with press reviews is that often the press are looking for the moon on a stick. I absolutely loved Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. Personally I just wanted more with Arkham Origins. However the press seem to be savaging it simply because it doesn't reinvent itself. Personally, I don't think a series needs to reinvent itself with every sequel. Sometimes something that is so right just needs expanding on and growing in terms of size and scope - with Origins does for the series. These posts were made less than ten minutes apart.
Zechs Merquise Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 It was reviewed maybe 10 years before some of the more recent Zelda titles. You're comparing scores (for what reason, I'm not really sure) that aren't really comparable in the first place. Pretty daft, really. I'm just pointing out, that you made the idiotic and sweeping statement that the Zelda series has got 'substantially worse' since Majora's Mask. I posted up the critical response to each title, which shows that is not the case. The critical reception has stayed above 90% and in fact every 3D home console Zelda release has actually scored higher than Majora's Mask. What you seem incapable of understanding, is that just because you think something is so, doesn't make it so. Games, movies and other forms of entertainment are usually graded on their critical and commercial success. They certainly aren't graded on what ranting fanboys say on forums over a decade later!
Sheikah Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 I posted up the critical response to each title, which shows that is not the case. The critical reception has stayed above 90% and in fact every 3D home console Zelda release has actually scored higher than Majora's Mask. Oh hai, I see you missed the bit where I pointed out that metacritic shows pretty much the reverse of what you said. So ya. Thus ends the ridiculous 'review scores are everything brap' nonsense.
david.dakota Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 I have always been under the impression that Zelda has substantially dropped in quality since Majoras Mask. I can't disagree with this more strongly. Zelda is consistently strong and I fail to see how anyone can suggest otherwise; sure no other Zelda game has been referred to as the best game of all time but thats really no indicator of a substantial drop in quality. I do however think Zelda has struggled to be innovative and ambitious in recent years and certainly conforms too much with the 'approachable' philosophy Nintendo has adopted since Wii. The only time Aonuma hurt me a little was when he made all these interesting promises about Skyward Sword which really weren't present in the game in the way he talked about it. Aonuma has admitted this himself. Now this I do agree with. I felt Skyward Sword never lived up; motion combat was great but seemed a sales hook with little to no new ideas elswhere in the game. I'm glad Aonuma has acknowledged this and his recent comments on western games could indicate some serious change to the formula.
Jonnas Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 I think WW was a good game but held up largely by its visual style and existing popularised game mechanics. I know lots of people here wax lyrical about it, but for me the sailing was pretty dull and monotonous, and the NPCs and sidequests pretty bland/sparse. That's fine, really. My main point was that "MM > WW" is not the main consensus (neither is the opposite), while both you and darkjak were talking as if it was. @Zechs Merquise: You should really learn how to argue your points without resorting to Ad Hominem (criticizing the arguer, as opposed to the argument). It really lowers the level of a conversation. Seriously, keep it civil.
Blade Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Im hoping this thread doesnt turn into a Skyward Sword slagging off thread. I loved every minute of it. Although I do prefer the mass open areas to explore like OoT and WW I thought it was clever and fun to re-explore already visited areas. I enjoyed that you had to solve puzzles to progress onto the dungeons themselves. I liked that the whole game felt like a dungeon. It was different and I had fun playing it.
Sheikah Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Well I said it because it's my opinion, not because I think everyone else thinks it. And yeah, Zechs you really do need to tone it down. You genuinely make me not want to bother visiting the forum sometimes.
Zechs Merquise Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Oh hai, I see you missed the bit where I pointed out that metacritic shows pretty much the reverse of what you said. So ya. Thus ends the ridiculous 'review scores are everything brap' nonsense. Stop lying: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/Zelda/results?sort=score What a substantial decline it shows hahahaha
Recommended Posts