Poll: Zelda as formulaic as COD?!!?!

[Elfgore]

For an outsider of Nintendo, like myself, they do appear to do the exact same thing as COD. Only they space it out through multiple series. A year doesn't go by that a new Pokemon, Mario, or Zelda game is released. I know pokemon rarely changes and from my point of view, Mario and Zelda rarely change through installments.

So, yeah. They do seem rather similar, just one relies on nostalgia and the other on casual gamers.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

How are they wrong exactly?As someone who used to be a big COD fan before getting tired of the same shit I can personally attest to the claim that the series has'nt changed at all since COD4.

He was addressing claims like "there aren't silent protagonists" and "change of setting."

Why are you trying to change the subject?

And if you take away the same superficialities, Zelda "hasn't changed a thing" either.

Noooooooooooope, intervene, flat-out innaccurate

Spoiler: Second to most recent Zelda game

Spoiler: Most recent Zelda Game

Are you honestly saying the differences in these two games are only superficial?

 

[Hero of Lime]

For an outsider of Nintendo, like myself, they do appear to do the exact same thing as COD. Only they space it out through multiple series. A year doesn't go by that a new Pokemon, Mario, or Zelda game is released. I know pokemon rarely changes and from my point of view, Mario and Zelda rarely change through installments.

So, yeah. They do seem rather similar, just one relies on nostalgia and the other on casual gamers.

You haven't played the games though, that's my problem with people saying Zelda games are just the same. If you just see screenshots and trailers, then yes, one can't be faulted for thinking it's the same thing over and over again. Anyone who has played a majority of the series would tell you why the games have distinct feels, mechanics, themes etc.

I would rant about how nostalgia isn't the reason why Zelda is well loved by lots of people, but I would rather not. I'll just say that quality games are what makes the series so popular, not good memories of our childhoods.

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

From the perspective of an outsider to both Nintendo and Call of duty both aim at similar audiences of fans who buy their product at annual release dates with out much innovation in the genre besides small-time graphics and game play changes. I would say Call of Duty and Zelda have more in common than either do to games that literally release the same game but with updated rosters like most sports games.

 

[sXeth]

CoD is released yearly, with essentially what boils down to being a moderate gameplay patch for an MP engine and a map pack. Rather then simply release a patch (free) and a map pack (DLC pricing), they throw in some brief campaign that usually steals wholesale from action B-movies, with a couple of gimmicky bits (Dogs, wingsuits, etc) used only in the campaign once or twice and discarded.

With the exception of Majora's Mask, I'm pretty sure every Zelda has been on an entirely new engine, and while they tend to have gimmicks to them, they certainly get more use out of them then the CoD thing of the year. They also aren't regurgitated every year, and you don't get the impression that you're playing Zelda v1.14 as a sequel to Zelda v1.12

 

[DeimosMasque]

From the perspective of an outsider to both Nintendo and Call of duty both aim at similar audiences of fans who buy their product at annual release dates with out much innovation in the genre besides small-time graphics and game play changes. I would say Call of Duty and Zelda have more in common than either do to games that literally release the same game but with updated rosters like most sports games.

Except it's not correct that Legend of Zelda games come out every year.

There were only two Wii Zelda games in the life of the entire system one in 2006 and one in 2012.

For the DS there were two one in 2007 and one in 2009.

Since only one in 2013 on the 3DS which was the recently released Link Between Two Worlds.

The above of course ignores re-releases and HD remakes.

 

[jamail77]

Ninetndo is ENOUGH like Cod in that once I've played one I've played them all, and don't get very excited to hear about any new ones. Pretty much sums it up.

Sure they're good games if that's your thing, just tell me which is best over at least a period of 3 decades so I don't have to wade through the quagmire of repitition.

a) Ocarina of Time followed by Majora's Mask[snip]

b) That applies to pretty much any game series.[snip]

Not saying you're wrong but in order to be a SERIES it requires repetition and Zelda's pretty good at striking the balance (least in my opinion, huge ocean exploration followed by being a werewolf seemed like decent contrasts)

OT: As for CoD I... honestly don't care all that much? They aren't bad just redundant, thing change in them but rarely enough to justify the whole game.[snip]

Summation: By definition, a series will be this. CoD does it terribly. Zelda doesn't do it as bad.(along with Metroid and Kirby, this is easily the worst choice of a Nintendo IP for this, Mario or Pokemon would have been better cases)

We hold on to nostalgia very strongly. On a technical level things improve and often so does writing or gameplay ideas if not gameplay improvements upon the original ideas even if we don't want to admit it. Since Twilight Princess, I'm told anyway, is essentially a spiritual sequel to Ocarina of Time I'm inclined to say it is the superior game. Ocarina of Time might hold some charm about it though in the same way people might like Adam West Batman better because of the campy charm in that show. I've never played Ocarina though; I've only seen clips and images of it. I have to confess that ignoring a Zelda GameBoy game, that I played all of 10 minutes of, my first real Zelda game was Twilight Princess then I played Phantom Hourglass. So, I'm no expert on the series.

Anyway, yes all series have some repetition, but like you say a balance is necessary. Making essentially the same game does not make a fun series. It's lazy and it's a waste of money even more so if they literally used the same exact engine, assets, and code for a majority of it. It gets old hence why I refuse Arkham Origins even if it does have the best story or so I'm told.

I didn't make the case of Mario or Pokemon because Zelda is the common "like COD" argument on the Internet among a certain sect of gamers (I think they're mostly defenders of COD). This is because while Zelda isn't quite as popular or anything it's well known for the nostalgia factor and has a solid fanbase, similar to COD, and one could argue Mario and Pokemon don't have these factors, at least not in the same way if they do have them to the same extent (which it seems they do).

 

[Genocidicles]

I'm not a fan of Zelda, so I don't know how much they change with each installment.

However, even if each installment in the LOZ series only changed as much as the installments of COD, it would still be more acceptable because a new LOZ game isn't released every year.

 

[Auron225]

COD is not like Zelda in any way imaginable aside from the fact that they are both somewhat formulaic, which basically means neither of them change a whole lot between iterations but the two franchises themselves couldn't be more different.

This is like comparing the various forms of Fairy Liquid to Hollywood action movies. Neither of them change much but they were never anything alike to begin with.

EDIT: Nvm, I thought we were comparing Zelda to COD in general, as in "Is Zelda a FPS? Can you get a hookshot in COD?". I see we're just talking about that aspect I mentioned above; how they do/don't differ much between iterations.

Well Zelda games come out a lot less frequently so however formulaic it may be; it's less annoying.

 

[Raging Raven]

Everything is rushed these days.

The shareholders pressure the Publishers,the Publishers then rush the developers,and we get a shallow game.

 

[omega 616]

At first I was like "what? Are you crazy" then after actually realizing what your point was, I'm now like "Yeah, kinda".

I've never really played a Zelda game (I vaguely remember playing a bit of one was I was a kiddie) but from what little tidbits I pick up ... it's same old same old. Maybe they change the style up and change the camera position but that is hardly a huge deal.

I remember something about X Zelda is basically a remake of Y zelda but with improved things, like the water temple is easier and you rent stuff now. Might as well be talking about quantum physics, the amount I actually understand but I get the gist and if that's all the games are, I am not that interested.

I've not played a whole heap of Mario (completed the first 5 or so levels of one and then got bored. Also played about 2 hours of 64 but never even completed a painting) but that seems more COD like than Zelda. All I ever see from that is 2D, 3D, 2D, 3D, 2D and the odd gimmick thrown in, "now you can be a cat!". Just like COD adding a new gun or "now you can use a quad copter/doggie!"

I do think all three franchise are just going through the motions though. Zelda and Mario are very highly polished indie games and COD is just being trotted out almost constantly.

I mean 3 studios working on a single game is insane at this point! If they had the three teams from 4 then it might have had more staying power but S.S COD is pulling out of port, me thinks!

 

[Erttheking]

I don't think so, because while the base formula stays the same, Zelda usually introduces enough to keep things fresh. Like sailing, dual worlds, or the ability to turn into a wolf.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Misleading topic titles ahoy!
This isn't really a direct comparison between the two, but a comparison of the degree of self-derivation between installments in a series.

And for the record: I've *NEVER* heard of or seen this specific faux-comparison topic until today.

To answer the question: Yeah, I think both series are strongly self-derivative with a little deviation from the core elements here and there (though there at least three distinct "flavors" of Zelda that Nintendo recycles, vs the one flavor of CoD.4.x)

 

[RandV80]

With Call of Duty never mind it's own frequent release schedule, it's one of many in the popular dude bro shooter genre. The Legend of Zelda is practically a genre unto itself, it's extremely rare that you get a similar game of good quality (ex: Okami).

That's the thing people frequently overlook when they go and bash Nintendo for being unoriginal with their games. If Nintendo stopped releasing them it would leave a black hole and their fans would have nothing comparable to play.

 

[WanderingFool]

Hmm, Is Zelda "ovewrly formulaic"? I would say yes/no. Yes, there is a obvious formula used in making Zelda games, but not anywhere near as bad as COD is.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Zelda is formulaic in the sense that its about a guy with a sword and a green outfit collecting items to save a princess. Anything outside of that criteria and a few reoccurring items is pretty much completely different in form and execution every time. Also it's built pretty much from the ground up for each game. CoD is more "take the same game, make some new levels, shine up the graphics(?), take something one weapon does and put it as an attachment on another weapon and call it new."