So, Chrisbg99 and I were talking last night about Skyward Sword and how I was going to mention in my future review of it how I actually liked Twilight Princess.

He told me that contrary to the loudmouths that dislike TP, it was really well-received, it's just the vocal fans that dislike it.

But now I'm starting to see people comment with 'TP is the most underrated Zelda game' on videos of the Medley of TP from the 25th Anniversary Soundtrack.

And that got me thinking... doesn't this always happen?

I mean, every time there is a console Zelda released, we have these fans who say, 'It will never be as good as OoT', and then afterwards, when the next console Zelda releases, it ends up becoming an underdog in a few fans' eyes, and eventually starts to get it's own loving fanbase.

It happened with Majora's Mask
It happened with Wind Waker
and I'm starting to see it happen with Twilight Princess.

Then there are the fans that just want the 'next OoT', but really... there won't be another OoT. So those fans' expectations are always shot no matter what you give them.

What are your thoughts on this?

Reminder: This is about OoT ruining/saving the fanbase, not the franchise.

URL to share (right click and copy)

@PogueSquadron

It's difficult to deviate too much from the Zelda "skeleton" though. Could you imagine the outcry the fanbase would bring about the world if a Zelda game came out without something as standard as dungeons? It almost wouldn't be a Zelda game then.

And while I can only speak for myself, I don't want the outline of the Zelda games to change. I like the way the games play, and how they progress. It's gaming excellence IMHO. Why fix what isn't broken?

I think each of the 3D games to come out has done at least some things better than OoT... but when you look at each of them as a whole, they all have their own flaws that bring them down. When I play OoT, I don't really feel any serious flaws. I don't get frustrated or pissed, I don't feel like I am playing filler, I don't wish for the characters to shut the hell up and let me play, and I don't think that the game would be better if they removed a large segment of it.

I don't think it's impossible for a 3D Zelda to surpass OoT at all. That's what people said about Mario 64... that people only considered it the best 3D Mario because of nostalgia and the fact that it was revolutionary. Well, that game has since been CRUSHED, and nearly all fans agree. The same can happen with Zelda.

Hopefully Miyamoto really does personally handle the Wii U game, though I doubt it.

@Hinph

You really didn't feel, at any point in Ocarina of Time, for Navi to shut up and leave you alone?!?

Overall I agree with you though. Ocarina of Time was/is a very tightly developed game, with nearly no filler and perfect pacing. But I also feel that way about Majora's Mask - that game was pitch-perfect in pretty much every way, too. But with a darker, edgier, more eerie tone to it.

Navi isn't so bad. She doesn't interrupt excessively and, more often than not, gives you the option to ignore her. When she does, it's straight to the point and usually new information. Fi, on the other hand, is the fucking anti-christ. I hate her.

... Oh. Also, I'm not too fond of the part of the game where you have to release all the worker dudes. Other than that, naaa... very few flaws in OoT.

Majora's Mask, I really WANT to love, but I'm just so stressed out by being timed that I can never play through it. I respect a lot of what it does, and recently read this article about it that makes me want to like it even more. Maybe I'll give it a chance again sometime, like if they remake it on 3DS.

I thought TP was amazing. Only reason I say OoT is my favorite, cause it was the first Zelda game I played and completed.

Really, all the neg. stuff you read on these message boards is from a very, very small minority, esp. compared to how many games were sold. Basically, you have a few jerks and assholes that get on message boards complaining about a game and all of a sudden for some reason, this is accepted how everyone feels about whatever game we are talking about.

TP is an excellent game, its actually better than OoT and WAY better than WW and I liked it better than Majora's Mask, which is a game I don't like due to the 3 day thing. I got bored doing the same crap over and over again and basically only got passed the first dungeon before i said enough of this shit. I don't want to do the same stuff over and over. Thats not fun to me, therefore the game sucked and now since I said that, MM officially sucks. Buawhahahahahahaha.

I never once, for a millisecond, ever thought Navi was annoying.

I've felt that Twilight Princess was underrated for a long time now. It has some issues like a really boring, dragged-out beginning section, but as a whole I think it's one of the best Zelda games in the series. It annoys me how it often gets dismissed as an Ocarina of Time clone.

Navi is annoying when you're trying to explore, and she pipes up with your next objective every 10 minutes. That aside, she's not too bad. The "watch out!" voice clip is actually kinda cute.

@Simbabbad

I'm only at the first dungeon in SS, but I'm not surprised to read what you wrote as it pertains to the overall feel of SS. Just looking at what I've seen of the map and how things went down when you first meet Fi, it seemed like it was going to be much more like the DS Zeldas in terms of world layout than previous console Zeldas.

That said I'm liking what little I've played more than I thought I would.

I do wonder about the extent to which Zelda has an identity crisis these days. Before, I was concerned about the "collect three trinkets before shit down down, then collect a few more trinkets before you finish things off" aspect of the series. I've realized that I don't really care about that anymore. I'm more concerned that a series that has traditionally been about exploration and a sense of adventure is becoming more and more linear, there's less and less to explore and everything else is just getting locked down and tightened up.

Your Metroid analogy is incredibly apt. Though based on the way the Prime series "evolved" I can't say I'd be pumped on a Retro Studios Zelda, but that's a whole other chat.

What do you mean about Link being a kid again? Again, I'm not far into the game but nothing like that has jumped out at me.

EDIT - and to the OP, I don't think OoT saved or ruined the Zelda franchise. I loved the art style in Wind Waker, but the world design and navigation was awful; aside from Twilight Princess there hasn't been a game with a compelling overworld (from a gameplay perspective) since Majora's Mask. The DS Zelda worlds were terrible and it seems like we're heading that way in general.

@Simbabbad

Ah, got it. Yeah, that makes sense.

I've swapped back and forth between this and Skyrim recently, and it's been an odd experience. The combat in Zelda is engaging and fun, while in Skyrim it's basically meter wars with a little character movement thrown in there. Skyrim is about wandering around, getting lost and looking for stuff, while Zelda is borderline linear. The plot in Skyrim is meandering, in Zelda it's much more directed.

I'm not saying that I want to pop Link into Tamriel carte blanche, but wandering around Elder Scrolls games and jumping into caves, I get a similar feeling to what LoZ and AoL gave me. "Oh shit what's in this cave, it could be someone stealing my rupees or a dungeon" or, "lemme just look for one more cool landmark." Obviously everything in Skyrim was put there, but it lets you feel like you're actually FINDING stuff. Zeldas these days make me feel like I've been LEAD to something, and I wish it was more like and Elder Scrolls game in that regard.

No idea if that makes sense to anyone other than me... this month has been weird.

Simbabbad said:

That made me not even want to try Majora's Mask, but I did anyway. And I got caught from the very beginning, it was pure joy from start to finish, and is hands down my favourite Zelda game (just above Twilight Princess), and is among the best games I've ever played.

So, no, it's not nostalgia, since I played the games back to back and it's IMO a very clear cut above the rest.

I wasn't arguing that it was necessarily nostalgia, but more that I feel that the weak parts of the game are being pushed back in hindsight in favor of the stronger parts of it. I don't think I'm alone in feeling like large chunks of the game (the initial Clock Town/deku scrub sequence of events, large portions of Woodfall) aren't really spectacular. But that said, I still adore MM so I'd rather just move onto this part of your post:

Simbabbad said:

BTW, I think Skyward Sword is easily among the worst Zelda games I've played, probably the worst. No story ("thank you Link, but the princess is in another dungeon" for 6/7th of the game), no overworld, artificial and lifeless land you have to play linearly, no interesting characters, no sidequest, only three different settings you come back to over and over, two among them being clichés, and terrible (IMO) art style and rendering.
It's only barely saved by the combat system, which is excellent but stops innovating half way (same enemies, only recoloured), and the concept of the time travel bubble in the third area (the only interesting one IMO) which is very cool, even if the same gameplay tricks are overused (basically, opening/closing doors and making machines work/not work) while its immersive, narrative and more original gameplay potential is ignored.

Basically, Skyward Sword ignored everything that made the Zelda formula unique: overworld, a lively land, riding an animal to travel said land, freedom, engaging sidequests/characters, epic atmosphere with a grand quest, and replaced all of that with the Metroid Prime Corruption formula with (only) three non connected lands you can land on from the sky, linear action on land with no NPC, etc. The only differences are the cliché main town in the sky, and the fact Corruption did everything else better, with actually interesting settings full of life and history, engaging storyline and events, etc.

Dang, Simba! That's some serious crit. Now, I'm not super-far into SS yet (currently in an area after the third dungeon), but I just can't agree with most of these assessments. I was reminded of Corruption in the way that the game handles area exploration and navigation, but I don't mind that aspect at all for the series. What the levels lack in "openness" they make up for in density and complexity. The game actually feels a lot like Metroid Prime to me, with numerous (vertical) layers everywhere, a plethora of puzzles and enemies, and difficult navigation from one area to the next. I feel that the dungeon-lite design of these sections gives a nice adventurous feel, even when it's somewhat linear in nature.

I have to contest your claim of "uninteresting characters" and "no sidequests" as well. I've spent a great deal in time around Skyloft getting to know the cast better, and helping them out in various ways. I'm (less than?) halfway through the game proper and I already feel like this is one of the strongest NPC casts in the series--pretty much every one of the shopkeepers in the bazaar has an unusual quirk or secret about them, from Rupin's gruff "actual" personality clashing with his "at work" personality, Peatrice's quarter-life crisis when working, and eventual bubbly persona being manifested in her crush on Link, the potion shop couple's implicit troubled relationship, particularly at night when the wife snoozes away while the husband tirelessly watches the baby, one of Groose's cronies opening up to Link via his bug-collecting, Pipit's mother being weirdly flirtatious with Link, and being scolded for paying him on housekeeping, and that's just the ones I've done so far. I'm also a fan of what I've seen of the academy's characters--Zelda, Groose, Fledge, Pipit and Karane all have distinct and enjoyable personalities.

The Gratitude Crystal side quests remind me a lot of Majora's Mask in that you're rewarded for helping people out in creative ways. I'm also a fan of bug-collecting and loot-collecting--it's something that you gather while playing normally, and I rarely feel the urge to actually grind for something (unless I'm, like, one ingredient away or something). The minigames have been fun so far too.

So I dunno. I like it.

Simbabbad said:So, never a Zelda game will outdo Ocarina of Time because some have already but they can't beat the memory of Ocarina of Time.[/quote]
That's what people used to say about Mario 64. Now the majority of fans agree that the Galaxy games crush Mario 64... and I know I personally believe that 3D Land is also much better.

I do agree that the current Zelda team could use a break. I'd love nothing more than to see Eiji Aonuma take a permanent hike from the series.

edit: I still can never quote people correctly when they have quoted others. haha.

I think one thing that Simba has kind of touched on that I think the series needs to address moving forward is the idea that each area no longer feels like an area in an organic world, but rather an isolated section like the Magic Kingdom. Everything in Tomorrow Land is futuristic. Everything in Frontier Land is woodsy. There's no overlap, and there's no integration of these areas at all.

The more Zelda does things like that, the more it stops feeling like an experience (that you're navigating some strange, mysterious world) and starts feeling like a game. As much as I adore Skyward Sword, there are times where it doesn't feel like I'm running around a world, but it just feels like I'm solving a series of giant jigsaw puzzles. I think this is actually what the game lost when it started making the overworld more like the dungeons.

In the past couple of games, Wind Waker in particular (IMO), it's almost been like a puppet show with marionettes, but you can see the strings holding the marionettes together and it almost kind of breaks the experience. Islands stop feeling like islands, and start feeling like arbitrary levels plopped into the ocean because Nintendo said so. This all goes back to things I was saying recently about Nintendo still relying on things like hookshot targets and giant eyeballs. What are these things? How did they get there? What purpose do they serve, other than the fact that it's a game, and Nintendo put them there as part of an intricate puzzle? At least in older games, most of these ideas had been relegated to the dungeons. The dungeons would have a specific language that the player would get into, and there was a sort of suspense of disbelief.

Where Retro shines beautifully, particularly in the original Metroid Prime, is that these "puppet strings" are much less apparent. Levels seem more organic. A room isn't just a room that houses a powerup. It's a lab where the Space Pirates experiment on other things (and maybe that powerup is tied to the story there). Metroid Prime didn't really feel like a bunch of arbitrarily designed rooms and buildings, but a logical series of structures that had purposes of their own.

I think just about every fan wants the return of a proper overworld, yes? Something like the 2D games. There will be no technical limitation excuse with the Wii U.

I don't think it's a technical limitation really. I think it's a design choice. Would it really be that hard in Skyward Sword to have a long cave or tunnel on the border of Eldin that finds its way to a cliffside on the edge of Faron? Or a river somewhere in the game that, if traveled, took you to another area? Twilight Princess didn't do a horrible job of this (though it could've been better, especially regarding Lake Hylia). But yeah, if you went to Kakariko village, you could go to two large sections of the field, or you could go to Death Mountain. If you were in the north part of Hyrule Field, you could go up to Zora's Domain, but there was also a way to get to Lake Hylia, Snowpeak, or another part of Hyrule Field (I think?). The woods were very isolated, and Lake Hylia was pretty isolated, but the game didn't feel as "spoke on a wheel" as say, Majora's Mask or Ocarina of Time did.

@Simbabbad I think you have some good points Simba but I also feel like this basically happened back with OOT, not now with Skyward Sword. OOT was by far one of the most linear Zelda games and there was almost no point in exploring the overworld unless you felt like bombing big rocks to go into a hole to get a few rupees. In fact you really couldn't explore much, it was just a hub world with spokes and you couldn't go to the new spoke until you had to. Majora's Mask is one of my favorite Zelda games too but the actual overworld was even worse in that game, uber hub world with only a few spokes, luckily the town itself was so packed full of things to do that it didn't matter as much. Wind Waker was the first 3D Zelda with a real sense of exploration in the overworld to me, but 90% of what you found were tiny, boring islands. Twilight Princess probably had the most fully realized overworld in 3D yet (which is why I don't understand all of the hate it gets) and it was the first 3D Zelda that felt to me like Nintendo might actually pull off a 3D overworld yet... but it wasn't quite there.

If Skyward Sword regressed that sucks, since I felt like Twilight Princess was a good place to build off of, but then, I haven't been truly happy with the overworld in a Zelda game since Link to the Past. And I managed to love the DS games as well, despite those having little to no exploration in the overworld period. I'm more of a fan of the dungeons in Zelda games anyway as stated here and I was very happy with Skyward Sword's first dungeon. Have yet to get much further. Mind you, I may be more a fan of the dungeons because I think Nintendo has been weak on the overworlds for a long time now.

I also agree that Metroid Prime > Zelda in world design. I've said this for a long time! Zelda could learn some things from Metroid Prime. Albeit the Prime games started regressing in world design over each iteration, I still think the first did it best.

I disagree that Skyward Sword has become a "popcorn" game though. Both the puzzles and the combat are far beyond what is found in the typical popcorn game (IE a lot of HD games.) It's a lot of fun, and if there isn't as much to do in the overworld as I would like there to be well... I'm used to that.

You guys didn't think (pre-third dungeon area) Lanayru Desert utilized its environments in a logical, non-video-game-like fashion? I thought the use of the Timeshift Crystals to navigate to other areas was extremely clever and made me wonder about the history and build of the area, particularly given how much of a wasteland it is in the present. The puzzles were either environment-related, like traversing the various sand rivers and riding on hermit crab shells, or technology-related, such as activating the generators and manipulating machinery.

That aside, I can agree with Pogue in that SS (and the other games in the series) still has plenty of unrealism, especially when considering the layout of the dungeons (eye switches, boss rooms, etc). But since the first game, Metroid has always striven for that more "organic" approach (bombing through cavernous areas and working your way into a subterranean alien base), while Zelda goes for the whole "temple of doom" traps and puzzles thing. I really don't mind that aspect at all, although when they can make it fit logically in the world (see above), it works nicely.

@Zero

Zelda could learn a lot from Metroid Prime indeed... starting with an option to toggle off the hints.

I'd really love it if Nintendo would let them make their own Zelda game. Why not the 3DS version? A spinoff even. Just some fresh new take from a completely new group of talented people.

@TriforceBun I definitely agree about that area, which is why it is by far the best area in the game. Whenever you go back there, you're finding a new, mysterious area to uncover. You're not simply going up and down Death Mountain over and over. Also, early on in the game, you're following Zelda. Your trek through the mining facility isn't just to grab a mystical doodad or a piece to a map, but to find Zelda and see where she's going. It was a dungeon yes, but it was integrated into the story. You weren't just going through there to get to a dead end and warp back to the entrance. Link went through it because he had to go through it to get to where he needed to go.

The idea of Retro making a Zelda game, knowing their ability to make a believable, cohesive world with an enormous attention to detail is incredibly attractive to me.

My problem with Skyward Sword's linearity is that it makes the game feel too segmented. Whenever I played, I have to make a choice: do I want to check up on the people of Skyloft or the Lumpy Pumpkin and do some sidequests, or do I want to go down to the surface to advance the story? In Ocarina of Time, I can be doing story stuff, stumble on something else to do, and then go do that. It never feels like I'm playing two different games. I guess that's what they were going for with the Sky and the Surface, but I'd much prefer having one cohesive overworld.

That said, I'm still really enjoying Skyward Sword. I'm a little worried that the story won't tie up all the loose ends it's throwing around though.