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
Poll: Zelda as formulaic as COD?!!?!
- Thread starter jamail77
- Start date
the hidden eagle said:
lol, ok.CaptainMarvelous said:Noooooooooooope, intervene, flat-out innaccurateZachary Amaranth said:
Are you honestly saying the differences in these two games are only superficial?
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"
josemlopes said:the hidden eagle said:lol, ok.CaptainMarvelous said:Noooooooooooope, intervene, flat-out innaccurateZachary Amaranth said:
Are you honestly saying the differences in these two games are only superficial?
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)
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.SourMilk said:
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.
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.Pink Gregory said:
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.
Oh really?CaptainMarvelous said:
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.
And Black Ops 2 is the direct sequel to Black Ops 1, and the differences also go beyond graphics and settings.the hidden eagle said: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.josemlopes said:Oh really?CaptainMarvelous said:
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.
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).
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.josemlopes said:Oh really?CaptainMarvelous said:
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.
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.
So basicly adding multiple endings, and multiple endings that arent "reach the end and choose A or B" but actual endings that change depending on multiple outcomes at various points of the game and the inclusion of sidemissions where you gave orders to NPCs arent enough but somehow changing how you get items is? Well then, you could choose your loadout at the start of each mission, is that a big change now?CaptainMarvelous said: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.josemlopes said:Oh really?CaptainMarvelous said:
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.
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.
Also, if I tell you something in an argument you cant say "well... other then that?" or it sounds really weak.
+1 For the video, a sterling choicejosemlopes said:
While I'm not denying that you listed new elements, I'm asking for more. I mean I gave three new ones as a response to that, I can do that 4-5 times for each Zelda game. I could nitpick about the multiple endings thing (mostly by pointing at Mass Effect or the Walking Dead who did it better) but it IS a valid point so I'm not gonna be that guy.
Not too familiar with the loadout thing, but yeah, I'd accept that as a change. That's basically what changed in a Link between Worlds, rather than earning items sequentially you had to get money and rent/buy them from a dude which meant you could approach things in nearly anyway you want (rather than going dungeon by dungeon like in most other Zelda games, you could now randomly choose which dungeon to do first and complete them in whatever order you desired).
I'm not even sure what our argument is, I mean, it's not Zelda is more formulaic than CoD (I don't think?) and I don't think it's that CoD is bad (we could HAVE that argument but it'd be off-topic), what exactly are we arguing about at this point?
Look up the list of the games released on the Wii. Compare Call of Duty to Legend of Zelda. There are more Call of Duty games on the Wii than there are Zelda games.
Zelda also mixes things up with sailing, flying and Majora's Mask had you play as a Goron, Deku Shrub and a Zora.
Zelda also mixes things up with sailing, flying and Majora's Mask had you play as a Goron, Deku Shrub and a Zora.
Lets see.
CoD, comes out once a year, has mostly minor gameplay changes, art style is exactly the same, slightly if any graphical improvements. Asside from a few entries in the series which mixed up things (maybe 4 out of the 20 or so games), CoD is more or less the same game.
Zelda, comes out once every 2-4 years, has some rather big gameplay changes while keeping the core the same, drastic art style changes, usually major graphical improvements.
Gee, I wonder if they are the same.
EDIT:
Does anyone else find it funny and depressing at the same time that the wast majority of people saying that all Zelda games are the same admit to never playing Zelda games? if you didn't play the games, if you don't pay enough attention to know any real information about the games, why do you think you can form a valid opinion about it?
And the posts saying how Zelda is released on a yearly basis is plain stupid. It's either ignorance or stupidity to claim something like that.
CoD, comes out once a year, has mostly minor gameplay changes, art style is exactly the same, slightly if any graphical improvements. Asside from a few entries in the series which mixed up things (maybe 4 out of the 20 or so games), CoD is more or less the same game.
Zelda, comes out once every 2-4 years, has some rather big gameplay changes while keeping the core the same, drastic art style changes, usually major graphical improvements.
Gee, I wonder if they are the same.
EDIT:
Does anyone else find it funny and depressing at the same time that the wast majority of people saying that all Zelda games are the same admit to never playing Zelda games? if you didn't play the games, if you don't pay enough attention to know any real information about the games, why do you think you can form a valid opinion about it?
And the posts saying how Zelda is released on a yearly basis is plain stupid. It's either ignorance or stupidity to claim something like that.
As someone who's not a fan of either franchise...
I'm gonna say, yes, Zelda is incredibly formulaic in a way not dissimilar to Call of Duty.
It seems to me that ever since A Link to the Past, every Zelda has wanted to be A Link to the Past again (barring Majora's Mask). Similarly, ever since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, every Call of Duty has followed in Modern Warfare's steps.
Generally when a sequel comes out, the new features are highlighted. Let's use inFAMOUS: Second Son as an example; the ads highlight the new protagonist, the new powers he can get and the new city he can explore. But regardless of all that, it still feels and plays like the old inFAMOUS games. It'll also have a new narrative. A lot of sequels get by with just that.
With Zelda and Call of Duty, it feels like each release is another Zelda, another Call of Duty. You do the same things with the same items for the same end goal. But what people should think about a sequel is "a new Game X."
Hyrule Warriors is a step in the right direction, even though it's a spinoff. It's going to feel different, but it'll still be Zelda.
I'm gonna say, yes, Zelda is incredibly formulaic in a way not dissimilar to Call of Duty.
It seems to me that ever since A Link to the Past, every Zelda has wanted to be A Link to the Past again (barring Majora's Mask). Similarly, ever since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, every Call of Duty has followed in Modern Warfare's steps.
Generally when a sequel comes out, the new features are highlighted. Let's use inFAMOUS: Second Son as an example; the ads highlight the new protagonist, the new powers he can get and the new city he can explore. But regardless of all that, it still feels and plays like the old inFAMOUS games. It'll also have a new narrative. A lot of sequels get by with just that.
With Zelda and Call of Duty, it feels like each release is another Zelda, another Call of Duty. You do the same things with the same items for the same end goal. But what people should think about a sequel is "a new Game X."
Hyrule Warriors is a step in the right direction, even though it's a spinoff. It's going to feel different, but it'll still be Zelda.
Yes and No
Yes, in that the games tend to follow the same set up game-play wise (3 mcguffins, get Master Sword, 6+ more mcguffins to get) and even story wise (Gannon is doing something Zelda would rather he not, and gets kidnapped or captured or w/e and Link is off being a farmer or generally being 'normal' some where ignorant of all the happenings)
There are few exceptions, naturally, but that's generally the standard.
No, in that Hyrule is different almost every time you play a LoZ (A Link Between Worlds being the only one to really reuse a map of Hyrule), the dungeons, the meat of the game, are also always different, even if they have the same theme from a prior installment, one Water Temple is not the same as the next. Even A Link Between Worlds, the one Zelda game to actually reuse assets have different dungeons compared to A Link to the Past.
Another difference is 'creepy', be it the tone of a dungeon, a cut scene, or just a boss, most Zelda games have some 'unnerving' element to them that is far more effective then any 'shocking moment' CoD will likely produce.
also, Majora's Mask, the whole game.
which brings me to the last thing.
Balls.
Nintendo made a Zelda game focus exclusively on death in Majora's Mask. It's a very mature game in how it handles that theme. The makers of CoD, ether can't (due to corporate or talent related reasons) or won't make CoD anything more then the shallow gun porn games they are.
Yes, in that the games tend to follow the same set up game-play wise (3 mcguffins, get Master Sword, 6+ more mcguffins to get) and even story wise (Gannon is doing something Zelda would rather he not, and gets kidnapped or captured or w/e and Link is off being a farmer or generally being 'normal' some where ignorant of all the happenings)
There are few exceptions, naturally, but that's generally the standard.
No, in that Hyrule is different almost every time you play a LoZ (A Link Between Worlds being the only one to really reuse a map of Hyrule), the dungeons, the meat of the game, are also always different, even if they have the same theme from a prior installment, one Water Temple is not the same as the next. Even A Link Between Worlds, the one Zelda game to actually reuse assets have different dungeons compared to A Link to the Past.
Another difference is 'creepy', be it the tone of a dungeon, a cut scene, or just a boss, most Zelda games have some 'unnerving' element to them that is far more effective then any 'shocking moment' CoD will likely produce.
also, Majora's Mask, the whole game.
which brings me to the last thing.
Balls.
Nintendo made a Zelda game focus exclusively on death in Majora's Mask. It's a very mature game in how it handles that theme. The makers of CoD, ether can't (due to corporate or talent related reasons) or won't make CoD anything more then the shallow gun porn games they are.
This may sound weird, but one of the most prominent differences between the zelda games is the differing tones... Majoras mask, ocarina of time, twilight princess are all fairly dark in tone, with death, sacrifice and betrayal being themes, whereas the wind waker and sequels have more humour and are generally light hearted.
Each have their own creepy bits though. However, there are a lot of reused/similar items in the zelda series and puzzles, but each game has a twist to differentiate itself from another, be it the wolf transformations, time travelling, sailing (and having entire seperate islands as opposed to one big land mass) Flying, that sort of thing. the dungeons are always different even if the enemies and some bosses are not (and even then bosses with the same design may have new ways to be defeated.)
I personally can't wait for the wii u zelda. I'm sort of hoping they use an ocarina/twilight princess darker style of graphics/aesthetics in order to show off what the wii u can do. Also, I want an adventure/story that feels as "epic" as ocarina. Twilight princess had a good crack at it, but fell slightly short with the second half of the game in my mind.
Each have their own creepy bits though. However, there are a lot of reused/similar items in the zelda series and puzzles, but each game has a twist to differentiate itself from another, be it the wolf transformations, time travelling, sailing (and having entire seperate islands as opposed to one big land mass) Flying, that sort of thing. the dungeons are always different even if the enemies and some bosses are not (and even then bosses with the same design may have new ways to be defeated.)
I personally can't wait for the wii u zelda. I'm sort of hoping they use an ocarina/twilight princess darker style of graphics/aesthetics in order to show off what the wii u can do. Also, I want an adventure/story that feels as "epic" as ocarina. Twilight princess had a good crack at it, but fell slightly short with the second half of the game in my mind.
Holy tits on Jesus, I could not have worded that better myself at all. This man. This is absolutely every thought on my end of this topic. I only wish I could add something XD I guess I can say that it can get sorts simple to always be saving Hyrule by means of defeating Ganondorf again and again. But it's always new and exciting each time. The way they make each new entry feel new is amazing. Something CoD needs to start trying to doZeh Don said: