Is Zelda going downhill?

[Silva]

Yes, they are going downhill. At least, the console games are. They have been since after Majora's Mask for me. And contrary to what Amnestic says, my view on this has nothing to do with nostalgia.

Ocarina of Time really was that good. In fact, if I had a working copy still, I'd play it again today. I played through that game a good twelve times. Meanwhile, I played through Twilight Princess... three times. The fact that it couldn't hold me for longer than that proves that it just doesn't have the same hardcore appeal.

Essentially, since Wind Waker, the series has tried to appeal to younger and more casual audiences. That means that, like the Wii, it has angered the hardcore, and in this case rightly so.

Anyway, it's impossible to say objectively that one game is better than another - for a lover of tennis, Pong may be more interesting than Zelda - but I will say that for me, the series has declined, and I think that I'm in the majority. We should've had a poll in this thread, it would have been interesting.

Sure, the puzzles in Twilight Princess and Wind Waker were fine, and I guess you could say that the visuals were fine if you like cel-shading or the like. The sounds were cool, the enemies were interesting... and the stories, if less archetypal and simple (and in my thinking, pure) than OoT, were tolerable.

The main problem with the series, for me, is simply that it got too easy. TP really missed an opportunity when it implemented a great horseback-to-on-foot fighting system then failed to throw enough enemies at you throughout the course of the game, or even for a single fight. I had one or two moments where I beat a bunch of enemies quickly with different weapons, and flourished, and there was a joyful feeling in that experience that should really have been stronger and more consistently felt throughout the whole game.

There was no real area where you could go in and have an epic fight whenever you wanted, and in this way it was not as entertaining as OoT, which had countless mini-games and at times some really hard combat. For someone who had conquered another Zelda game before, there really wasn't much appeal in these two games. They make great introductions for gaming, yes, but is that what Zelda should ever be about? I doubt it.

 

[Marter]

I think that in general the LoZ games have gone down in quality. They are still good, (with the exception of Link's Crossbow Training...), but they aren't "The Best Games Ever" anymore, like they were in the late 90's.

 

[Avatar Roku]

What more do you want?

Common sense from reviewers? Guess I shouldn't ask for miracles though, so hey-ho.

Well, he did say most acclaimed, not best, so he was technically right, although I disagree.

Just to be clear, you disagree that it is worth those scores?

And to be clear with Amnestic, you're not disagreeing with me either. It *is* the most acclaimed game of all time, as evidenced. I offered no opinion on its worthiness for that title. Like anyone, I have a comprehensive list of favourite games, but people aren't likely to give them 100% scores.

One other point though. It's dangerous territory to use the term 'common sense' as equating with 'agreement with my opinion'. I don't see how 'common sense' has any relevance to OoT's review scores.

Yes, I'm saying that I do not believe OoT deserved that score. It's a great game, but not The Greatest. Just personal opinion though.

 

[Amnestic]

Just to be clear, you disagree that it is worth those scores?

And to be clear with Amnestic, you're not disagreeing with me either. It *is* the most acclaimed game of all time, as evidenced. I offered no opinion on its worthiness for that title. Like anyone, I have a comprehensive list of favourite games, but people aren't likely to give them 100% scores.

One other point though. It's dangerous territory to use the term 'common sense' as equating with 'agreement with my opinion'. I don't see how 'common sense' has any relevance to OoT's review scores.

I disagree that any game is worth 100%, regardless of content.

However, I concede you were right, it does appear to be the most acclaimed game out there. I do wonder, however, how many reviewers might go back and adjust their scores if they were faced with the question "Does Ocarina of Time have flaws?"

Because that's what perfect means: Flawless.

And it does have flaws. It's not perfect, no game deserves 100%. And common sense should dictate that as basic knowledge.

It recieved 18 100% scores and not one of them was deserved.

I /spit on the entire reviewing community for that, and I'll /spit on them again for every other 100% they've given out, even for games which I adore and fanboy over like Baldur's Gate 2 (9 100%'s.)

 

[Mrkittycat]

Majoras Mask is my favorite. It was bonecrushingly hard to get most of the masks, especially when you had no idea how to get some of them. But damn it if it wasn't rewarding. TP didn't really capture that magic, and wasn't as difficult as past games. (On OoT i had to use the internet on the woods temple. I was 8 gimme a break)

 

[Avatar Roku]

Essentially, since Wind Waker, the series has tried to appeal to younger and more casual audiences. That means that, like the Wii, it has angered the hardcore, and in this case rightly so.

Ah yes, the kiddy Wind Waker, which ended with Ganon being impaled through the head. Personally, I feel that Wind Waker was just as hardcore (though I hate that label) as OoT. I can see where you're coming from saying that TP is less so, but I think you're making the mistake of equating "casual" with "kiddie". One thing I love about Wind Waker is how sympathetic they made Ganon, and a thing I love about TP is how they really played up Dark is not Evil. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkIsNotEvil] Far from morally ambiguous, but I at least get the sense that they aren't talking down to us, you know?

 

[AMMO Kid]

Do you think the Zelda series has gone downhill the past few years (from Wind Waker onward, let's say)? Will we ever surpass Ocarina of Time, or was Twilight Princess the greatest thing since the invention of the action-platforming-puzzle game?

Yes I do. The Windwaker was the golden spectacle of how an adventure game should be made in a sea of gaming cow pat...Twilight Princess had it's moments, but other than the graphics and some of the story it sucked. I thought Zant was a perfectly fine final boss, and I was quite annoyed when they pulled a last second turnover on me...they didn't even mention a triforce in the Twilight Princess. They just refered to it as "...the power within..." That sucked...

 

[Silva]

Ah yes, the kiddy Wind Waker, which ended with Ganon being impaled through the head. Personally, I feel that Wind Waker was just as hardcore (though I hate that label) as OoT. I can see where you're coming from saying that TP is less so, but I think you're making the mistake of equating "casual" with "kiddie".

It's worthy of note that getting impaled through the head is pretty tame by today's cartoon standards. Look at Ren and Stimpy, or if they're not good enough (considering how old they are, they speak a lot for how lax we are about violence in kid's shows), try looking into Itchy and Scratchy on The Simpsons. So frankly, that doesn't detract from my point.

I was actually referring to "casual" and "kiddy" as separate styles that happen to be coinciding in the direction Zelda is going currently, not as implicit synonyms of one another. In the modern era of older gamers, it really isn't usually the case. But it is with the Wii, which is trying to be a family audience affair. Just look at the advertising.

Miyamoto may have just been searching for a different look and style to add "magic" back to the franchise after the formula was feeling a bit stale with Majora's Mask for the old fans, but the result is still a greater appeal for younger audiences, comma, and casual audiences, full stop.

One thing I love about Wind Waker is how sympathetic they made Ganon, and a thing I love about TP is how they really played up Dark is not Evil. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkIsNotEvil] Far from morally ambiguous, but I at least get the sense that they aren't talking down to us, you know?

Maybe Ganon was slightly less evil in the WW iteration, but he was back to unambiguously straight villain fare for Twilight Princess, so this does not represent a consistent move towards complexity or anything.

 

[QuickDEMOL1SHER]

I'm sorry, I laughed out loud when I saw the title.
Is Zelda GOING downhill? Buddy, Zelda has already dropped down the bottemless pitt at the bottom of the canyon that is at the bottom of the hill. In fact, Link gave Mario a high five on the way down. Yes it was one of the grandfathers of gaming, but that doesn't mean it's STILL good.

 

[Katana314]

Not even Valve sticks to one over-throttled idea for that long. I pretty much agree with Yahtzee's sentiments. It doesn't matter if it's not the "macho guy with big gun" cliche, it's practically made its OWN cliche with the number of games it's churned out.

 

[Fidelias]

They started going downhill once they stopped being made solely for the gameboy(color,advance, ds etc.) You know, when Zelda actually tried to take itself seriously?

 

[Avatar Roku]

Ah yes, the kiddy Wind Waker, which ended with Ganon being impaled through the head. Personally, I feel that Wind Waker was just as hardcore (though I hate that label) as OoT. I can see where you're coming from saying that TP is less so, but I think you're making the mistake of equating "casual" with "kiddie".

No, I was actually referring to "casual" and "kiddy" as separate styles that happen to be coinciding in the direction Zelda is going currently.

Also, it's worthy of note that getting impaled through the head is pretty tame by today's cartoon standards. Look at Ren and Stimpy, or if they're not good enough (considering how old they are, they speak a lot for how lax we are about violence in kid's shows), try looking into Itchy and Scratchy on The Simpsons. So frankly, that doesn't detract from my point.

One thing I love about Wind Waker is how sympathetic they made Ganon, and a thing I love about TP is how they really played up Dark is not Evil. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkIsNotEvil] Far from morally ambiguous, but I at least get the sense that they aren't talking down to us, you know?

Maybe Ganon was slightly less evil in the WW iteration, but he was back to unambiguously straight villain fare for Twilight Princess, so this does not represent a consistent move towards complexity or anything.

Miyamoto may have just been searching for a different look and style to add "magic" back to the franchise after the formula was feeling a bit stale with Majora's Mask for the old fans, but the result is still a greater appeal for younger audiences, comma, and casual audiences, full stop.

Sorry, I got a bit angry there. I've gotten so angry at the people who discounted WW only because of it's graphics (some magazine or another called it a "boring easy kiddy game" a full year before it came out based solely on the Cell Shading) that I forget that people can actually have legitimate complaints about the game. Sorry.

I guess this is sort of the point at which we agree to disagree, huh? Doubt we'll convince one another.

 

[Con Carne]

From the ones I've played. (The ones on consoles except the one on game cube.) I'd say the series is staying pretty strong. My favorite by far was "A Link to the Past" That is practically Nintendo's Final Fantasy 7. I think a shit ton of fans would have an "OMFG Party" to celebrate if Nintendo remade it for a newer console.

 

[ENKC]

Just to be clear, you disagree that it is worth those scores?

And to be clear with Amnestic, you're not disagreeing with me either. It *is* the most acclaimed game of all time, as evidenced. I offered no opinion on its worthiness for that title. Like anyone, I have a comprehensive list of favourite games, but people aren't likely to give them 100% scores.

One other point though. It's dangerous territory to use the term 'common sense' as equating with 'agreement with my opinion'. I don't see how 'common sense' has any relevance to OoT's review scores.

I disagree that any game is worth 100%, regardless of content.

However, I concede you were right, it does appear to be the most acclaimed game out there. I do wonder, however, how many reviewers might go back and adjust their scores if they were faced with the question "Does Ocarina of Time have flaws?"

Because that's what perfect means: Flawless.

And it does have flaws. It's not perfect, no game deserves 100%. And common sense should dictate that as basic knowledge.

It recieved 18 100% scores and not one of them was deserved.

I /spit on the entire reviewing community for that, and I'll /spit on them again for every other 100% they've given out, even for games which I adore and fanboy over like Baldur's Gate 2 (9 100%'s.)

I had no intention of playing devil's advocate in this thread, but here goes. 100% or equivalent does not necessarily mean perfect or flawless. Whether it does to you is not of importance to the reviewers.

PC Powerplay magazine here in Aus makes this point very emphatically - that 10/10 means the game is a masterpiece but you should gauge the opinion given from the body of the review. Can a masterpiece not have minor flaws but still be worthy of the term?

For that matter, what purpose is there in having a marking system out of 100 if the 100 is deliberately never allowed to be used? In that case you actually have a marking system out of 99. Or 98. And so forth.

In short, it is YOUR OPINION that it did not deserve those scores, which does not render THEIR OPINION incorrect. And I dispute that common or basic knowledge should dictate that no game can be perfect or worthy of 100%. Your particular take on scoring systems is not the only one which may be logically justifiable.

 

[Silva]

I disagree that any game is worth 100%, regardless of content.

However, I concede you were right, it does appear to be the most acclaimed game out there. I do wonder, however, how many reviewers might go back and adjust their scores if they were faced with the question "Does Ocarina of Time have flaws?"

Because that's what perfect means: Flawless.

And it does have flaws. It's not perfect, no game deserves 100%. And common sense should dictate that as basic knowledge.

While I agree with you that no game should be called "perfect", a 100% score doesn't have to denote perfection. Many reviewers at the time of OoT were talking about it as a "milestone in gaming" or a "point which cannot be improved upon further".

Basically, they were calling the game the Mount Everest of gaming, to be surmounted as a highest point in the known geography of games at that time, and perhaps, as things were, for all time. So they gave it a 100%, because they believed no other game could come out that beat it. For me, nothing has. So I think their decision, while quite gun-ho, was mostly justified.

Yes, other games got the score, but the feeling was there at the time those mainstream reviews that gave full marks were done. It's like acknowledging that Columbus reached America; it's a point in history which might be surmounted later, but who cares? For that moment, when he reached America, he was probably, very subjectively, king of the world. It was his moment. And that's the kind of hype that was riding through the gaming media at the time for OoT. It was like a tsunami. And in that context, for me, a 100% score makes a lot of sense.

Amending the scores later when we get a bit more realistic - now there's an idea.

Sorry, I got a bit angry there. I've gotten so angry at the people who discounted WW only because of it's graphics (some magazine or another called it a "boring easy kiddy game" a full year before it came out based solely on the Cell Shading) that I forget that people can actually have legitimate complaints about the game. Sorry.

That's absolutely fine, I've had the same trouble actually. I don't like it when people discount WW just for the graphics, though they weren't to my taste exactly. WW is still in my cupboard, and I certainly played it for all it was worth. For me, it was just hard to see it as good as something that really informed my inner myth for its time, like OoT did. So it's technically "downhill" for me. That doesn't mean that each step down hasn't been a high point in and of itself. Of course it has.

I guess this is sort of the point at which we agree to disagree, huh? Doubt we'll convince one another.

Sure, if you want that. I think that we agree more than we might've realised.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Just to be clear, you disagree that it is worth those scores?

And to be clear with Amnestic, you're not disagreeing with me either. It *is* the most acclaimed game of all time, as evidenced. I offered no opinion on its worthiness for that title. Like anyone, I have a comprehensive list of favourite games, but people aren't likely to give them 100% scores.

One other point though. It's dangerous territory to use the term 'common sense' as equating with 'agreement with my opinion'. I don't see how 'common sense' has any relevance to OoT's review scores.

I disagree that any game is worth 100%, regardless of content.

However, I concede you were right, it does appear to be the most acclaimed game out there. I do wonder, however, how many reviewers might go back and adjust their scores if they were faced with the question "Does Ocarina of Time have flaws?"

Because that's what perfect means: Flawless.

And it does have flaws. It's not perfect, no game deserves 100%. And common sense should dictate that as basic knowledge.

It recieved 18 100% scores and not one of them was deserved.

I /spit on the entire reviewing community for that, and I'll /spit on them again for every other 100% they've given out, even for games which I adore and fanboy over like Baldur's Gate 2 (9 100%'s.)

I had no intention of playing devil's advocate in this thread, but here goes. 100% or equivalent does not necessarily mean perfect or flawless. Whether it does to you is not of importance to the reviewers.

PC Powerplay magazine here in Aus makes this point very emphatically - that 10/10 means the game is a masterpiece but you should gauge the opinion given from the body of the review. Can a masterpiece not have minor flaws but still be worthy of the term?

For that matter, what purpose is there in having a marking system out of 100 if the 100 is deliberately never allowed to be used? In that case you actually have a marking system out of 99. Or 98. And so forth.

In short, it is YOUR OPINION that it did not deserve those scores, which does not render THEIR OPINION incorrect. And I dispute that common or basic knowledge should dictate that no game can be perfect or worthy of 100%. Your particular take on scoring systems is not the only one which may be logically justifiable.

I agree, although this confusion is one reason I'm against review scores in the first place. What's the difference between a 67 and 64? If there must be a rating system, I prefer it to be like XPlay's:
1 Star: Avoid like the plague
2 Stars: Decent, but seriously flawed
3 Stars: Average. Most games fit here
4 Stars: Very good, the sort of game that will be fondly remembered, but with some big flaws
5 Stars: Masterpiece. Not perfect, but a modern classic

 

[Pifflestick]

The series is still good. Its hard for it to do anything better then OoT, but its still very good. But I don't understand all the hate for Wind Waker, that game was great. It had its problems, but it took the series in a new direction both gameplay-wise and artisticly. Of course, my perspective may be skewed by my love of cel-shading.

 

[OmegaXzors]

It all depends on the person because some people say "Majora's Mask" surpassed "Ocarina of Time," here I am to say "FUCK NO!"

I hated Majora's Mask. I thought the time limit idea was ridiculous. The plot in general was a bit lame. That aside, they aren't so bad. I liked Phantom Hourglass. People disliked the whole "return to the same big dungeon to get one level farther at a time" idea, but I liked it. I haven't played Spirit Tracks but I want it.

Wind Waker was great. Twilight Princess was okay but I thought it really lacked the difficulty luster. I mean, I didn't even have to think twice to solve puzzles. When they give you a way to find all the hearts, it became suuuuuuper easy. Though, it looked great.

Wind Waker had the most epic way to finish Ganondorf though. Right in the forehead. You cannot surpass that for Zelda. No, Ocarina of time sword in Ganon beast isn't as epic.

 

[ajb924]

No Zelda game will beat MM in my opinion. It was even better than OoT.
But, OoT is number 2.
I personally loved WW, it was #3. Twilight princess was too easy and there wasn't enough bonus stuff.
And I don't care for the controls on the DS ones. But, Minish Cap was surprisingly good. I'll admit I've played through it a good 3-4 times.