Is the Souls series the grownup Zelda?

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I haven't played the Souls series, but based on what I've seen of it, not really.
I'd say the Darsiders series is a better shout for "adult Zelda", then I again I know several adults who enjoy the Zelda franchise (me included), so not sure why we need an "adult version" of a perfectly great series...
I understand the thought, and it's quite a fun one too, but not a necessary one

Well Darksiders 1 certainly, I heard the second one moved towards a more dungeon crawlery style. Though I can't honestly call Darksiders 1 (haven't played the 2nd) grown up, adult or mature in any way. It was one of the most juvenile gaming experiences I've had, so much so that it brought the game down to being merely "meh". You could replace almost all the characters with grunting pieces of concrete and not lose anything of value. Perhaps the one thing worth of note about that game was the fairly imaginative environment design.

As to the question "Why should we want to have a grown up Zelda?" I honestly don't really care: I've never owned a Nintendo console. Though I can see the appeal. Zelda deals with very mature themes at times, but what an "adult" approach would add is the possibility to go into a whole new level of intensity with it. Hell, some of the levels in Twilight Princess could almost already be classified as horror. Imagine if Nintendo embraced it fully, and just made some of the levels in Zelda straight up horror sections. Adding more visible damage than the enemies just disappearing into puffs of smoke would add impact and feeling to the combat. The feeling of threat from Ganondorf, or whoever we're fighting, could be increased tenfold if the game allowed for more graphic or intense content.

 

[blackdwarf]

Nah. there other games which also fulfills these characteristics and still are not similar games.

And in my opinion Zelda has not a vague story. there is always a main plot which revolves a lot around kill Ganon, save princess. Dark souls 1 was unique in the way that there wasn't a actual plot. There was a lot of story, but that was merely to provide context to the world and characters you meet.

besides that, I find Zelda A lot more linear. With maybe the exception of the first game, you are pretty much required to do dungeons in a certain order and even the side activities are pretty much linear in their own right. Dark souls does have some linearity(Rings bells, get Lordvessel, get Lords Souls), but you have a lot more influence in the way how you progress. You can get the one of the Lords souls before Ringing the bells and the game barely suggest what you should be doing. the way you progress has more to do by actually exploring and fighting, till you get a point where you get stuck or are incapable of beating the monsters, at which point you can explore somewhere else and still progress.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

pbbt, not even CLOSE; the design is way too different in many aspects.

1. Souls has paltry puzzles if it even bothers with them. With Dark Souls they're either just throwing a switch or making a shortcut. That's it. Zelda's puzzles are clockwork pieces of art.

2. Combat doesn't have the variety of Zelda. With Zelda you're using all your tools in one way or another to either solve how to finish the fight or how to make them easier. The boomerang, the bow, the gauntlets, bombs, hookshot, every gadget in Zelda adds variety and strategy to fights. Souls has ONE strategy in combat: strafe with your shield up and wait for the enemy to make an opening. That's it. It's a system that makes the enemy variety POINTLESS.

3. The gadgets which are used for a variety of things. Fighting, traversal, puzzle solving, they add a layer of depth and progression to the world, one which Souls really doesn't have. Most of the time you're not blocked from anything and can go where you feel like. With Zelda there is a meticulous structure to things that is clearly planned out.

And that's before we get into a problematic comparison: "grownup." What? Perhaps in the most base and shallow manners, but there's nothing about Souls that makes it more "adult" than Zelda aside from a few aesthetics. Thematically and narratively it's nothing Zelda hasn't touched before which has run the gamut from uplifting and whimsical to somber and morose. Every time someone uses "adult" to describe something I can tell they have no clue what "adult" really means.

 

[CaitSeith]

Pretty much the lack of puzzles disqualifies from being Zelda. A Dark Souls version of Zelda would include puzzles as disturbing, hard and unforgiving as the battles themselves.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

pbbt, not even CLOSE; the design is way too different in many aspects.

2. Combat doesn't have the variety of Zelda. With Zelda you're using all your tools in one way or another to either solve how to finish the fight or how to make them easier. The boomerang, the bow, the gauntlets, bombs, hookshot, every gadget in Zelda adds variety and strategy to fights. Souls has ONE strategy in combat: strafe with your shield up and wait for the enemy to make an opening. That's it. It's a system that makes the enemy variety POINTLESS.

And that's before we get into a problematic comparison: "grownup." What? Perhaps in the most base and shallow manners, but there's nothing about Souls that makes it more "adult" than Zelda aside from a few aesthetics. Thematically and narratively it's nothing Zelda hasn't touched before which has run the gamut from uplifting and whimsical to somber and morose. Every time someone uses "adult" to describe something I can tell they have no clue what "adult" really means.

2. The Souls series has parrying, backstabs, stamina management, guard breaks, thrown projectiles, staggering, knocking opponents down and special attacks from certain weapons that add a hell of a lot more variety than circling your opponent with shield up. Just to name a few.

"Adult" can mean a lot of things. Souls isn't necessarily more sophisticated, complex or intelligent, but it's a hell of a lot more intense and dark in its atmosphere, and the feeling of futility and hopelessness that permeates the series throughout isn't something you could see in a family friendly game. Can you honestly say Zelda games can match the depth of the tragedies in Dark Souls? An entire civilization drowned to keep its horrors at bay? The fact that the last bastion of light and purity in Lordran is merely an illusory facade, and that whatever benevolent forces inhabited it left or went insane long ago? Many a merchant and benevolent NPC going mad and forcing the player to kill them?

 

[Tilly]

I'd always seen Zelda as the grownup Zelda!??

The 2 seem completely distinct to me, don't even feel remotely similar even if they share some technical similarities.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

What, Zelda's done a post/mid-apocalypse story about the inevitable cycle of death and rebirth?

Uh, that's kind of the ENTIRE FREAKING SERIES. That's what Skyward Sword established is that Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf are absolutes that will always return to combat one another; one brings the times of need and the others respond to it. There's always a hero, a princess, and a dark lord. And it's an endless cycle stretching into infinity not just through time but across different dimensions. And heck, how many Zeldas have had apocalyptic overtones? The very first one is after Ganon conquers the world, Majora's Mask has the Moon looming overhead as a constant reminder of how little time you have, Wind Waker is blatantly post-apocalypse with the Great Sea being the flooded remains of Hyrule, and then we have Link's Awakening in which you instigate an apocalypse in order to beat the game. It wasn't new territory for Zelda, not for years

 

[Ishal]

All it would take, IMO, is for the Souls games to add lots of puzzles, and Zelda to add more equipment variety, and the two would almost become interchangeable. I haven't really seen this thought being mentioned in many places.

What do you think? Can we stop clamoring for the "adult" Zelda game now that we have FromSoft's output?

Souls games have some things in common with Zelda, but I wouldn't really call them "grown-up" Zelda titles. I do think they deal with similar themes, especially regarding one specific Zelda game, that being Majora's Mask. Dark Souls deals with concepts of entropy and Nihilism, and it's style is less cartoony and more grit, for lack of better terms. I suppose if one equates that to being more adult then sure, it is. Dark Souls is very much it's own thing, trying to convey it's own very specific themes. The Souls games are left open to interpretation by design. They want you thinking about things.

But the similarities have been noted by several people and touched on. Like here.

https://youtu.be/4_ZLoHl5UH8?t=23m57s

I do think they are able to deal with things in more direct ways due to them not being, well, Nintendo games. Despite both touching on them in their own way, and Dark Souls opting to not be overt in most cases.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

"Souls games are a lot like adult Zelda games!"

"They're not exactly like Zelda games, though."

"Okay."

The third-person action RPG genre isn't exactly busting with product, so I think it's fair to suggest Souls games resemble Zelda games. Dark Souls 2 even more so with all the hidden doors. I can't say I've ever thought of Zelda's "puzzles" as anything more than momentary delays requiring specific items to bypass, which isn't much different than any of the various "keys" found throughout DS2.

 

[Olas]

Okay let's go through this:

3rd person fantasy action game? Check

True

Vaguely defined story that has you collecting a specific number of something important that often takes a backseat to the gameplay? Check

I'm not sure I would call the story in the Zelda games "vaguely defined", at least not like the souls game where almost nothing is explained up front. Majora's Mask does require a little sleuthing to unravel some of the secrets, but it's mostly spelled out.

Somewhat linear progression through a semi-open world with lots of variety in scenery? Check

The Zelda games, at least the 3D ones, are actually very linear, even if they do require you to backtrack a lot.

A world that rewards exploration and finding hidden areas, characters and secrets? Check
Finding specific items to upgrade your most vital tools (Estus flask shards vs. pieces of heart)? Check

True, but this is such a common element in games across various genres, including ones outside fantasy, that it might put them in a smaller category together if they didn't feature these elements.

Heavy emphasis on boss fights being the main event? Check

The main event? I don't really think this is true in either series, but certainly not in the Zelda series. The bosses in Zelda are fairly formulaic and often follow the rule of three. In Dark Souls the bosses are more of an event,

Going through a whole lot of castles, caves and temples? Check

In Zelda there's a fairly strong distinction between the overworld and the separate dungeons, in the souls games it's all sorta one big interconnected dungeon that just has changing scenery. Okay, I've only played the first Dark Souls, but I'm assuming they're pretty much like this.

In Zelda you have towns with lots of villagers, in Dark Souls you have a few isolated NPCs in rooms scattered across the world.

Combat with a wide variety of enemy types using melee, ranged and magical attacks? Check

Eh, in Zelda maybe, in Dark Souls you kinda gotta pick a class, or set of skills, and follow it. If you spread yourself too thin you kinda end up sucking at everything. When I played Dark Souls I stuck mainly to melee combat with miracles as my secondary.

Copious amounts of smashing pots? Triple check

Lol

All it would take, IMO, is for the Souls games to add lots of puzzles, and Zelda to add more equipment variety, and the two would almost become interchangeable. I haven't really seen this thought being mentioned in many places.

I think you're overselling the similarity. In Dark Souls you're a highly customizable avatar, in Zelda you're always a blond dude in a green tunic. In Zelda there's like... plot, and dialogue, in Dark Souls you're sorta just set loose and expected to figure things out on your own.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It's already been mentioned, but I was under the impression that the Darksiders games were "Zelda for grown-ups". Third person action games that take place in an open world, in which you acquire new abilities and items that unlock new areas and secrets throughout the game, combined with an equally heavy emphasis on puzzles and combat. Both Zelda and Darksiders fall into those categories, Darksiders just aims for a more mature take on it.

Dark Souls is open world, but you don't really acquire new abilities that open up areas, you just complete a certain portion of the story and it gets opened up. And it doesn't have much in the way of puzzles either.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Going by your checklist, it sounds like you might as well compare it to every other feudal-age action-adventure game.

 

[Mutant1988]

Not really. As far as I know, the Zelda games never had any deep combat mechanics. Not even close to those of the Souls games.