...derp.
I mean, Link could be looking for Skull Kid, that was a friend from OoT that would be missing. I'm pretty sure it's heavily implied to be the same guy so it certainly seems possible that was what the developers were thinking when they were writing the game.Well first, that Navi doesn't ever appear again in OoT indicates that the departure is permanent. That's not even getting into MM where Navi is conspicuously absent, and Link is 90% established to be looking for her (yes, the "friend" he's searching for is never expliitly called Navi, but I never met anyone who thought it was someone else).
The characters in this game have like 3 expressions, tops.Zelda's expression is similar to that when she first meets Link
Personally, I like it when a story all fits together like a well oiled machine. I also hate 2001.Also, even if something is ambiguous, that's not inherently a bad thing. Plenty of stories end ambiguously without issue (2001: A Space Odyssey comes to mind).
Ok, yeah, it's more developed than LttP, but it's a rough sketch compared to something that is actually story focused. Like, Link isn't even a character, all he can do is stare with a gormless expression on his face. How well do we really know any of the characters in the game? We get a dozen lines of dialogue each from the major ones and you can infer and infer about this and that because of every little detail that you are putting 10x the thought into that the developer did, but even then it's a rough sketch of a character. What does Saria like other than playing that one song on the ocarina and little blonde Hylian boys? What doesn't she like besides the forest getting overrun by Ganon's minions? How would she react if someone laughed at her for her green hair, would she get angry, cry, or would she take it in stride and laugh along with them? We really know next to nothing about her, because we spend next to no time with her. And this goes for everyone. The character we spend spend the most time with, besides Link, and who has the most dialogue in the game doesn't even have a personality. Navi is just exposition and nothing else.I bring this up because while the structure of both stories is broadly similar, OoT has meat that ALttP lacks. LinkPast gives just enough context for the player to understand what they're doing and why, but nothing beyond that. There's no characters of note, there's no deeper themes to explore, worldbuilding is sparse, etc. In OoT, however, each dungeon has a clear theme with an associated character. Each character is an individual he met in his childhood, each character is inevitably lost to him (tellingly, the meeting always occurs in childhood, and the losing always occurs in adulthood). The only real exception to this is the Deku Tree, which dies despite Link's efforts. Compare that to ALttP, where Link's uncle dies, gives you his gear, and Link doesn't seem to give a crap. You can attribute this to the limitations of the SNES, you'd have a point in doing so, but that doesn't make it somehow better.
So, yeah. I really don't get how you can say the story simply exists to justify the dungeons. Key example, Forest Temple. You meet Saria outside it as a child, she foreshadows its importance later on, cue seven years later, the realtively idealic meadow is now a nightmare, and Shiek references this in his usual monologue outside each table. Every dungeon in the game has something beyond "go kill monsters."
Well, that it's canonically Navi aside, I don't see how this even works. The intro text to MM says (paraphrased) "...searched for a lost friend he parted ways with when he took his place among legends." Skull Kid doesn't meet that definition in any sense. Meeting Skull Kid is optional in OoT, it happens relatively early on in most cases, Link shows no signs of particular closeness to him, nor particular recognition in MM. Even Saria would better fit this role.I mean, Link could be looking for Skull Kid, that was a friend from OoT that would be missing. I'm pretty sure it's heavily implied to be the same guy so it certainly seems possible that was what the developers were thinking when they were writing the game.
Come on, that's a red herring. Any number of games may lack facial expression variety, there's countless ways to convey a scene. Even if facial expressions didn't exist in OoT, stuff like body language and music cues still exist, including the scene in question.The characters in this game have like 3 expressions, tops.
I'm not fond of 2001 either, but it's still a case of intentional ambiguity. This isn't speculation, Kubrick outright stated (paraphrased) "if you left the film with a full understanding, we failed. We wanted to raise more questions than we answered."Personally, I like it when a story all fits together like a well oiled machine. I also hate 2001.
Wait, you're saying that OoT ISN'T story focused?Ok, yeah, it's more developed than LttP, but it's a rough sketch compared to something that is actually story focused.
Again, disagree.Like, Link isn't even a character, all he can do is stare with a gormless expression on his face. How well do we really know any of the characters in the game? We get a dozen lines of dialogue each from the major ones and you can infer and infer about this and that because of every little detail that you are putting 10x the thought into that the developer did, but even then it's a rough sketch of a character.
I can make a number of deductions about Saria:What does Saria like other than playing that one song on the ocarina and little blonde Hylian boys? What doesn't she like besides the forest getting overrun by Ganon's minions? How would she react if someone laughed at her for her green hair, would she get angry, cry, or would she take it in stride and laugh along with them? We really know next to nothing about her, because we spend next to no time with her. And this goes for everyone.
Again, that's just not true.The character we spend spend the most time with, besides Link, and who has the most dialogue in the game doesn't even have a personality. Navi is just exposition and nothing else.
Um, bully for Diso Elysium?Let's compare this to a game that actually wants to tell a story, Disco Elysium. Over the course of the game you really get to know Kim Kitsuragi. You get to know what he likes, and what really ticks him off. You learn about his past, and his hopes for the future and also his fears. By the end (heck, by the start) he really feels like a real person, you can understand how he would probably react in situations that aren't in the game beyond some vague idea that 'he'll do the right thing'. And this goes for so many of the characters in the game, even most of the really minor ones feel like real people and get more dialogue than anyone in OoT. And that's just characters, you can take any aspect of DE's story (setting, themes, plot) and it will make OoT look like a doodle because even though it's a game with a story (and not bad for what it is) it's not a game about it's story and no amount of interpreted themes, tones, or symbolism will change that.
It's less revenge stories, and more so criticizing games that were constantly dark, gory, or "edgy" for the sake of it and juvenile reasons. Nobody complained about themes of revenge in No More Heroes 1 and 2, nor Nier around that time. Most people weren't playing Nier, but still.I also think criticizing revenge stories got cool around the same time that it became popular to always yell "morally grey" at everything.
See, I knew you'd do this, that's why I said "and you can infer and infer this and that because of every little detail that you are putting 10x the thought into that the developer did, but even then it's a rough sketch of a character."Again, disagree.
I'll be first to admit that Link, regardless of incarnation, isn't an in-depth character, even if some incarnations clearly have more personality than others (and OoT isn't the most fleshed out). However, I don't see how you could play OoT and say he has no character.
In fact, I actually tested this. Confining this purely to OoT (so I can't incorporate material from MM, TP, or anything else), what can I reasonably say about Link's character? Well:
-Lonely (we see him at the start, morose, due to the lack of a fairy, hear him sniff before the nightmare)
-Lazy, to an extent (given Navi's comments)
-Brave (partly because of the concept that actions define a character, partly because this is reinforced over and over, from the Deku Tree, to Impa, to Link getting the Triforce of Courage)
-Socially awkward, naive (there's a few key examples of this - first is Link's interaction with Darunia after Dodongo cavern, how he refuses the goron hugs. While the scene itself is played for laughs, this does reinforce the idea of Link being a bit clueless. For instance, when you get the Zora's Sapphire, it's outright stated that "you don't know what engagement/marriage is"), and this comes back to bite Link in the arse seven years later when Ruto confronts him (which again ties in with the childhood/adulthood theme, but that's on another level).
-Clearly has a softer, more emotional side that does come up from time to time. First is when he parts ways with Saria, as he's clearly torn up about leaving her/the forest. The second, arguably, is when he gives the ocarina to Zelda.
It's the broad strokes of a character, but even being as reserved as possible, it's not correct to say that Link has no character.
I can make a number of deductions about Saria:
-Cares about Link (is clearly happy for him when Navi comes, is morose to see him leave)
-Isn't interested in Mido (it's certainly inferred that Mido has a thing for Saria, such as a kokiri can, but there's no sign of reciprocation)
-Can play the ocarina
-Intuitive (she's able to sense how important the Forest Temple will be well before she's awakened as a sage)
-Brave (she goes to said temple while the rest of the kokiri sans Mido hide)
So, no, I don't know how Saria would react to someone teasing her about green hair, but I can certainly make a number of inferences based on the elements of her character that are established. And again, that's not even getting into the thematic elements.
Again, that's just not true.
Of the three fairy companions Link's had over the series, Navi's probably the least-well developed, and she certainly doesn't compare to, say, Midna, but I can hardly say she has no character. Again, confining this purely to the game and nothing else, what do I know about Navi?
-Cares about the Deku Tree (takes time to say a final goodbye, even after Link leaves)
-Generally pleasant, but impatient (even casting aside the "hey, listen!" exclamation, she's impatient that Link takes so long to wake up)
-She's generally implied to have a vested interest in Saria. What I mean is that it's telling that without any prompting otherwise, Navi mentions Saria twice as hints - first around Death Mountain, second, she mentions Saria as soon as Link emerges from the Temple of Time after his nap. And while the ludo reason for this is clear, bear in mind that Navi never does this for anyone else. For instance, she mentions the cold wind from Zora's Domain, she doesn't mention Ruto)
-Cares about Link, is brave (see her lines at the final battle(s)
Again, I'm not about to claim that Navi is an in-depth character, and she's known more as a meme these days, but to claim that she's "exposition and nothing else?" Sorry, I just don't see how that's the case.
Then why did you bring up LttP if comparisons don't matter? And yeah, that's actually how it works. Quality is relative. Let's say you've never read anything other than high school short stories all your life, you have no conception of a story that hasn't been written in a high school. You'd base your entire understanding of what is bad, good, and great off this body of amateur work written in a short period of time. Then let's say that one day you read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Obviously this is going to blow away 99.9% of what you've read before and force you to re-conceptualize what good and great even mean in the context of a story because even the greatest of high school short stories can't hope to stand in the same category as it. What was great must become good, and what was good must become bad.Sorry, never played DE, probably never will. Maybe it's better than OoT, that's beside the point - this isn't a comparison. If X has a better story than Y, that doesn't mean that story Y doesn't have a good story ipso facto.
You'd think so but the crazy thing is that stuff like symbolism, themes, and tones barely even have to be written, leave everything vague enough and your audience will do all the work for you. A statement that you've been providing ample support for. That stuff is like garnish for a story. It's great if it's there, but without the actual meal it doesn't do anything. Man cannot live on symbolism alone.Also, your last lines are a borderline contradiction. If you state a game isn't about its story, while also saying the game has symbolism, themes, and tones, then usually, that means the game is about, well, story (you could certainly claim that it's not about plot, and that's quite possible - for instance, 2001 is light on plot, but heavy on theme), but even then, I don't get how you can claim OoT isn't about its story. Not when it spends so much time on it, to the extent that, as I've already mentioned, there's a number of people who resent it for having too much story.
That's generally how characterization works - if a character does something, it informs the reader/viewer/player about that character. If I see Bob kneeling over the grave of Bill, with Bob sobbing, I can reasonably infer that Bob cared about Bill, even if it's never outright stated. Or to use a more practical example, the Doom Slayer from the recent Doom games barely says anything across said games, but a lot can be deduced about his character simply from his actions and how others react to him.See, I knew you'd do this, that's why I said "and you can infer and infer this and that because of every little detail that you are putting 10x the thought into that the developer did, but even then it's a rough sketch of a character."
I've brought up ALttP because lots of people have used it as a point of comparison in video essays (Egoraptor, Deadlock, etc.), and because the framing of both games are near identical. Something like Disco Elysium isn't as relevant because it's not in the same series or genre, either mechanically (action adventure vs. CRPG) or narratively (high fantasy vs. crime drama). And back to what I also said, that OoT has a better story than ALttP doesn't make ALttP's story bad. The crux of the matter is that ALttP barely has a story at all, period. In a world where the series ended at ALttP, that still wouldn't change.Then why did you bring up LttP if comparisons don't matter?
Well, yes, but also no.And yeah, that's actually how it works. Quality is relative. Let's say you've never read anything other than high school short stories all your life, you have no conception of a story that hasn't been written in a high school. You'd base your entire understanding of what is bad, good, and great off this body of amateur work written in a short period of time. Then let's say that one day you read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Obviously this is going to blow away 99.9% of what you've read before and force you to re-conceptualize what good and great even mean in the context of a story because even the greatest of high school short stories can't hope to stand in the same category as it. What was great must become good, and what was good must become bad.
I agree with the last part - theme is the proverbial icing on the story cake - but a) OoT has a lot of cake, and b) stuff like symbolism, themes, and tone are very concious choices. Anyone can read into a theme if they put in enough legwork, that doesn't mean a theme is always present.You'd think so but the crazy thing is that stuff like symbolism, themes, and tones barely even have to be written, leave everything vague enough and your audience will do all the work for you. A statement that you've been providing ample support for. That stuff is like garnish for a story. It's great if it's there, but without the actual meal it doesn't do anything. Man cannot live on symbolism alone.
90% disagree.I can claim OoT isn't about it's story because even if you took every NPC and cutscene out of the game you could still play it and get a somewhat similar experience. You'd explore, find secret heart pieces, solve puzzles, and defeat bosses. It'd still be a good game. The world would feel empty and you'd lack context for your goals, but I'm sure you'd still have people arguing up it's story based off of even vaguer details and the mystery of the abandoned world. If you took the NPCs and cutscenes out of a story focused game it would fall apart because the story was the entire point of the game.
I think you meant to say "former" there.Basically what I'm trying to say is that there is a difference between a game where the gameplay is designed to support the story, and a game where the story is designed to support the gameplay. Did the designers say "I want to make a game with these mechanics, what should the story be?" or "I want to tell this story, what should the gameplay be?" OoT is clearly in the latter category and I don't see how anybody can argue otherwise.
You're right.I think you meant to say "former" there.
Hey, I think you might be on to something here!If that's the cutoff, then hardly any games are worthy of having their stories discussed at all.
What's interesting about that game is that the story gets more complex the higher your difficulty setting is, from a standard 'save the world from the bad guys' plot on Easy to making you question who the real bad guys are on Hard.Gunstar Superheroes has a great story for Blue and Red respectively, provided you're playing on Hard Mode for either of them. With Blue's story being the darkest of the two.
Honestly I don't think either Golden Sun or Lost Age even collectively had particularly good stories per se, if all you're looking at is the main plot. It's a generic "save the world from bad guys who want to destroy it" plot that the second game subvert by turning out that the bad guys are actually trying to save the world... a twist which was in itself a cliche even back when the games were released.Also, while I'm here, I'm going to give a shoutout to the first two Golden Sun games. Because while neither GS1 nor 2 make the grade by themselves, if they were one game, they absoltely would be. In part because that's how they were originally intended, in part because they make up for the weaknesses in each other - GS1 has a brisk plot, but is light on worldbuilding. GS2 is heavy on worldbuilding, but its plot is a slow burn, and you only really get a clear direction once you reach Lemuria. Put them together though, and you've got an epic on your hands.
I kind of agree, though I'd argue there's a distinction between games. GS1 has a very streamlined story compared to GS2, but GS2 has far more worldbuilding. The townsfolk dialogue is nice in both games, but that's true of RPGs in general.Honestly I don't think either Golden Sun or Lost Age even collectively had particularly good stories per se, if all you're looking at is the main plot. It's a generic "save the world from bad guys who want to destroy it" plot that the second game subvert by turning out that the bad guys are actually trying to save the world... a twist which was in itself a cliche even back when the games were released.
However, I think where the story shines is the world building and character dialog, and there's a lot of both that you can miss if you're not thorough. Going to talk to every townsperson, guard, maid, etc. at various points as they update like a typical RPG will work, but you miss half of the characterization and world building that way. The Mind Read psyenergy lets you double up on what you get out of every character, and there's a lot of details about the world and the people in it that you get off of it. As for the characters themselves, from the major ones to the random NPCs most of what they say, think, and do doesn't come off as either a batch of narmy cliches that nobody would ever do IRL or like they don't really care about what's going on. The characters are well written enough that they seem like people, more or less.
I think in Golden Sun's case the story is pretty good with even just each of the 2 games alone for this reason. You really have to piece a good amount of it together for yourself but every town and area has quite a bit of world building and characterization going on.