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

[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."

 

[MrOwneddeath]

Zelda hasn't reached the point of forgetting what made it good and putting stuff the original fans cared about where the new generation wants

 

[josemlopes]

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.

Compare previous Zelda games like Skyward Sword to A Link Between Worlds and then say that.Both have different game design,layout,graphics,gameplay,and controls.

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?

lol, ok.

I think the biggest problem here isnt that COD is formulaic but the fact that people are just going around in the bandwaggon that Call of Duty is bad in every single way. The COD series is very formulaic indeed but it does try some new things like how Black Ops 2 had multiple endings and side-missions, I dont remember the previous games having that. People can blame the COD series of being bad in a lot of ways but at least choose the right things to complain about.


And Zelda is also very formulaic, A Link Between Worlds can be compared to the original Zeldas and Skyward Sword to Wind Waker. Both series are formulaic, one more then the other (COD is more) but both also do new things in each game and none of them are "the same shit with a different wrapping"

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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.

Compare previous Zelda games like Skyward Sword to A Link Between Worlds and then say that.Both have different game design,layout,graphics,gameplay,and controls.

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?

lol, ok.

I think the biggest problem here isnt that COD is formulaic but the fact that people are just going around in the bandwaggon that Call of Duty is bad in every single way. The COD series is very formulaic indeed but it does try some new things like how Black Ops 2 had multiple endings and side-missions, I dont remember the previous games having that. People can blame the COD series of being bad in a lot of ways but at least choose the right things to complain about.


And Zelda is also very formulaic, A Link Between Worlds can be compared to the original Zeldas and Skyward Sword to Wind Waker. Both series are formulaic, one more then the other (COD is more) but both also do new things in each game and none of them are "the same shit with a different wrapping"

Firstly, I was illustrating how the Zelda games have deeper differences in development than merely being superficial (I'm assuming that first screen is a CoD game I'm unfamiliar with) but the differences are just made greater by your comparison i.e. Black Ops has multiple endings, Skyward Sword had multiple dialogue trees in conversations. This isn't even the most notable development since it also had motion controls, a more dungeon crawling style mechanic where you need to return to the hub-town regularly for supplies like potions, shields, etc, a stamina gauge which didn't even used to exist and I didn't even like Skyward Sword but I can tell you it innovates more than Black Ops II.

Zelda may be formulaic but its not even in the same LEAGUE as Call of Duty for this. You are welcome to think otherwise but as it stands the comparison is (had some side missions and multiple endings) VS (Link still has a green hat and there's still a chick called Zelda, thats-about-as-far-as-it-goes)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Edit: Also, CoD isn't a prototypical FPS, it came much too late to even be the prototype for the Modern Military Shooter (Which would be Halo, for the genre as it exists today.). It is, however, the current stereotypical FPS.

Erm, should I remind you which game came first? Should I remind you which game still retains some of the traditional mechanics? Should I remind which game is more popular and thus which is more hastily developed? Should I remind you which game actually stood for innovation?

In comparison, Halo is the most niche franchise.

Halo is a transition point between arena shooters as they used to exist, and modern military shooters as they exist now. CoD didn't have recharging health and all that until CoD 2, which came well after Halo. Halo is absolutely the prototype for modern military shooters. There were realistic modern shooters before it, but anybody who claims, say, Rainbow 6 is where the subgenre started has either never played Rainbow 6, or hasn't played a shooter since it came out.

You might be able to make an argument for Medal of Honor (the original team for which founded Infinity Ward after leaving EA), but even then, the PS1 era MoH games didn't have much in common with MMS's. Halo did. And it was largely because Halo was one of two prototypes for how to successfully fit an FPS onto a console's control scheme, with the other one being Goldeneye. Halo spawned legions of imitators. The last game in the Goldeneye mode was Timesplitter 2.

Edit: Turns out CoD 1 didn't come out until two years after Halo 1 anyway. I thought you were saying CoD came first, but it didn't.

 

[Aeonknight]

Series are a poisoned chalice. Too much change, fans freak out (hello, Wind Waker); too little change, fans get bored. End the series, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

You can't win.

That only applies if you listen to the complaints, and only the complaints. It's not that you can't win, it's that you can't please everyone, and the displeased are the loudest.

Applying it to the Zelda franchise, Ocarina of Time is typically heralded as one of the best. But there is always that vocal minority that thinks the games should've stayed with the Link to the Past mechanics. Twilight Princess was pretty good, but some people will complain that it's too much like Ocarina of Time. Wind Waker was successful for how different it was, yet people will ***** because Cell Shaded.

I don't think any one of those examples were considered outright failures, but I'm certain they've been called that at one point by that one person who can't ever be happy with it and has to let everyone know.

 

[josemlopes]

Zelda may be formulaic but its not even in the same LEAGUE as Call of Duty for this. You are welcome to think otherwise but as it stands the comparison is (had some side missions and multiple endings) VS (Link still has a green hat and there's still a chick called Zelda, thats-about-as-far-as-it-goes)

Oh really?

Spoiler

And Call of Duty also had motion controls on the Wii since that was basicly the only platform with motion controls out of the box, if Skyward Sword was released in any other system I doubt that those controls would be ported over to Kinect or Move.

My point is that while COD is indeed more formulaic dont pretend that all Zelda has going for it are the green hat and a chick called Zelda.

 

[josemlopes]

Zelda may be formulaic but its not even in the same LEAGUE as Call of Duty for this. You are welcome to think otherwise but as it stands the comparison is (had some side missions and multiple endings) VS (Link still has a green hat and there's still a chick called Zelda, thats-about-as-far-as-it-goes)

Oh really?

Spoiler

And Call of Duty also had motion controls on the Wii since that was basicly the only platform with motion controls out of the box, if Skyward Sword was released in any other system I doubt that those controls would be ported over to Kinect or Move.

My point is that while COD is indeed more formulaic dont pretend that all Zelda has going for it are the green hat and a chick called Zelda.

Don't be dishonest here.The differences between ALTTP and ALBW go beyond graphics and settings.Also your example does'nt have any merit since A Link Between Worlds is a distant sequel to A Link to the Past so it's only natural they would have the same locations.

And Black Ops 2 is the direct sequel to Black Ops 1, and the differences also go beyond graphics and settings.

I am defending that both games are formulaic with COD still being more then Zelda, I dont know what you are trying to defend since all there is left is that Zelda isnt formulaic, I guess that makes sense when you can use the argument that by being a sequel it can be forgiven of being similar (but apparently doesnt apply to COD and it needed to have each game in a diferent genre with every new sequel).

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Zelda may be formulaic but its not even in the same LEAGUE as Call of Duty for this. You are welcome to think otherwise but as it stands the comparison is (had some side missions and multiple endings) VS (Link still has a green hat and there's still a chick called Zelda, thats-about-as-far-as-it-goes)

Oh really?

Spoiler

And Call of Duty also had motion controls on the Wii since that was basicly the only platform with motion controls out of the box, if Skyward Sword was released in any other system I doubt that those controls would be ported over to Kinect or Move.

My point is that while COD is indeed more formulaic dont pretend that all Zelda has going for it are the green hat and a chick called Zelda.

Misunderstandings ahoy! There's a LOT going for all the Zelda games, I'm just saying they aren't formulaic any more than every series will be formulaic. Even the Link to the Past direct sequel changed how you get items (by renting them like some arcane blockbuster) and had the 2D flatwalking Link and that was DIRECT. The Black Ops and Black Ops II sequels changed... come on, gimme a core mechanic here, gimme something that marks the two as different besides graphics and that one thing you already said.

Hell, I'm throwing it out there, Zelda is one of the LEAST formulaic of any long running game series. I welcome a rebuttal, good sir.