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

[Olas]

However, when you say,

The Zelda games are about as different from one another as they can get without changing genres entirely.

I can't help but think of Majora's Mask, which is easily the black sheep of the franchise (Zelda II notwithstanding). It's very different from the other titles in both gameplay and narrative, but it's still very much a Zelda game.

Every Zelda game, by the nature of being a Zelda game, is going to be a Zelda game. Once again you're being vague and nonspecific about what these games have in common except that they have "Zelda" in the title, which in the case of Majora's Mask is vestigial anyway as Zelda herself never appears in the game.

It sounds to me like you would only be satisfied if each game had nothing to do with the Zelda formula whatsoever and was completely unrecognizable as being part of the same franchise as the others; at which point I have to ask why even bother using the same IP at all?

In fact, if Nintendo were to make a game as fundamentally far removed from the general Zelda formula as you're suggesting, I'd argue that it wouldn't truly BE a Zelda game anymore. It would be it's own game just with the Zelda brand slapped on; Zelda in name only. And with Nintendo getting as much flack as they do for reusing old IPs I'd see no point in that.

And you're right that mechanically and aesthetically Majora's Mask is very similar to other installments, namely Ocarina of Time which it even used assets from, but you can't judge the diversity of a series by comparing only 2 installments, especially ones that are direct sequels released 2 years apart for the same console. The Zelda series spans 10 consoles and nearly 30 years and has undergone enormous changes in that time.

I would argue that Majora's Mask is only the "black sheep" in certain respects such as plot, setting, major themes, whereas other games diverged in different areas. Windwaker would probably be seen as the 'black sheep' visually and tonally had it not gotten 2 spiritual successors on the DS and thus formed it's own spinoff trilogy, while Skyward Sword will probably be seen as the black sheep of the series in terms of controls, setting, overworld design (the whole game is a giant dungeon) and many other aspects. 4 Sword Adventure featured 4 player coop in the main campaign and had a multiplayer mode. In the original Zelda there was no linear path and the dungeons could be completed in any order. These unique elements, perhaps not visible from the outside, have kept the series fresh and interesting when Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty seem repetitive and monotonous.

 

[llsaidknockyouout]

I think with Zelda, there are games in the series that are derivative and there are games that innovate.

Zelda I, A Link to the Past, Majora's Mask, and A Link Between Worlds for example have changed the formula and structure.

 

[The_Echo]

Every Zelda game, by the nature of being a Zelda game, is going to be a Zelda game. Once again you're being vague and nonspecific about what these games have in common except that they have "Zelda" in the title, which in the case of Majora's Mask is vestigial anyway as Zelda herself never appears in the game.

I... don't think I was being all that vague at all.

When you see someone playing Majora's Mask, it looks like they're playing Zelda. The dungeon-based progression, the items, the combat, the enemies. It's all classic Zelda but at the same time Majora's Mask managed to distance itself and become its own thing.

Compare it to... Metal Gear Solid 3. The Soliton Radar was gone, the maps were more open, the guard AI was changed, stamina and healing specific injuries was introduced, and your equipment was largely different from both previous titles. But regardless, it was still very much identifiable as a Metal Gear Solid game. Does that make sense?

A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are, in my opinion as a casual observer, the only games that seemed like "new" Zelda titles. They evolved the game and made it feel fresh, and in MM's case completely turned it on its head. They were more than just variations on a theme.

 

[senordesol]

In a word: No
CoD has never deviated from the FPS perspective. Zelda has been top-down, side scrolling, and OTS.

Variances in CoD's inventory have amounted to nothing more than different gun skins or heavily scripted events. Variances in Zelda's inventories completely change the way the game can be progressed.

Cod's changes in gameplay (i.e. vehicle missions) occur for a single level or two; offered simply as 'spice' for an otherwise undifferentiated experience.

Zelda, thus far, has staked entire titles on: Transformation mechanics, sailing mechanics, time manipulation mechanics, personal augmentation mechanics, even TRAIN CONDUCTING MECHANICS for heaven's sake.

Wanna know the difference between the two?
No matter how much the story changes in Call of Duty, it always feels the same.
No matter how much the story repeats itself in Zelda, it always feels different.

 

[Olas]

Every Zelda game, by the nature of being a Zelda game, is going to be a Zelda game. Once again you're being vague and nonspecific about what these games have in common except that they have "Zelda" in the title, which in the case of Majora's Mask is vestigial anyway as Zelda herself never appears in the game.

I... don't think I was being all that vague at all.

When you see someone playing Majora's Mask, it looks like they're playing Zelda. The dungeon-based progression, the items, the combat, the enemies. It's all classic Zelda but at the same time Majora's Mask managed to distance itself and become its own thing.

You say you aren't being vague, but you are. You list dungeons, items, combat, and enemies as things that the games have in common, without going into any specifics whatsoever about any of them, overlooking all the ways these things have shifted and evolved across the series. Almost as if the mere fact that the Zelda games HAVE these things makes them all the same. How many NON-Zelda games feature dungeons? Usable items? Sword based combat? Don't even get me started on the enemies, those change TOO much in my opinion.

Compare it to... Metal Gear Solid 3. The Soliton Radar was gone, the maps were more open, the guard AI was changed, stamina and healing specific injuries was introduced, and your equipment was largely different from both previous titles. But regardless, it was still very much identifiable as a Metal Gear Solid game. Does that make sense?

Yes, but I never made the case that the Metal Gear series was formulaic and repetitive in the first place. Admittedly I'm probably about as familiar with the Metal Gear games as you are with Zelda (meaning I'm no authority on them at all), but I don't see them as being nearly identical rehashes like COD just because they tend to feature stealth action and usually revolve around a character named Snake and giant robots.

 

[The_Echo]

You say you aren't being vague, but you are. You list dungeons, items, combat, and enemies as things that the games have in common, without going into any specifics whatsoever about any of them, overlooking all the ways these things have shifted and evolved across the series.

But that's the whole idea. The core mechanics of the Zelda franchise (the dungeon-crawling, movement, combat et al), will appear in each installment like any other franchise. This is how it's generally supposed to be.

What Zelda doesn't do, though, is bother to shake up those mechanics and try new things. (Which is how you evolve a mechanic, by the way.) Thinking about it now, A Link Between Worlds is very much a step in the right direction for the franchise, despite reusing ALttP's overworld. It took familiar concepts and shook them up. Items were rented and Link had a new power to use in dungeons. Dungeons were designed in multiple layers, which I think is new for 2D Zelda and the dungeon progress was nonlinear similar to the first game. And I'm pretty sure the plot is different, too.

There needs to be more of that. It's good. Some people are calling ALBW the best Zelda yet and I think what I've said might be the reason why.

Yes, but I never made the case that the Metal Gear series was formulaic and repetitive in the first place.

Honestly? They kind of are. In fact, the entire point of MGS2 was to emulate the events of MGS1 but even with that it still managed to feel like a different game.

Admittedly I'm probably about as familiar with the Metal Gear games as you are with Zelda (meaning I'm no authority on them at all),

Hey thanks for, uh, totally invalidating me like that. It really helps me to be in a discussion where I'm clearly not being taken seriously.

but I don't see them as being nearly identical rehashes like COD just because they tend to feature stealth action and usually revolve around a character named Snake and giant robots.

I think you're misconstruing what I'm trying to say here, and have been every step of the way to invalidate me because I don't agree with you. That's how it feels at least.

Very very few games are as self-derivative and by-the-numbers as the Call of Duty franchise. This is something that might just be a universal truth. I'm not trying to say Zelda is a cookie-cutter franchise; it's not. But there are elements to it that are perhaps less than ideal and, in my opinion, support stagnation between titles.

 

[renegade7]

Zelda is pretty formulaic, insofar as there are certain elements common to Zelda games that continue to be included because they just work.

The core formula of Zelda hasn't changed significantly in 25 years. You walk around, find the dungeon, get the new tool in the dungeon, fight the boss, repeat X number of times, and since ALTTP there will be an obligatory plot twist about half or 2/3 of the way through. But you also really can't argue that Zelda is just the same repackaged game every time just because there are similarities between all of them, as there is also a pretty consistent attempt to keep things fresh and interesting (else the series would have long since stagnated). It's pretty rare in the series for any one game to just plain be nothing more than an improvement over the last one. I think the only two times that's fully occurred would be with TP and OOT and between ALTTP and Zelda 1 (which even then is hard to say because the series wasn't really fully established yet). But then again, having played TP and OOT, it doesn't really do it justice to just say that TP "improved upon" OOT...it used the structure and mechanics of OOT to make an equally awesome game.

I'd say Mario is a lot more guilty of being COD-y, in that the main series has pretty much plummeted headlong into what I guess might appropriately be called the "McVideogames" genre, that is to say, no real effort and exists only to sell and when you really think about it isn't all that great.

 

[Olas]

But that's the whole idea. The core mechanics of the Zelda franchise (the dungeon-crawling, movement, combat et al), will appear in each installment like any other franchise. This is how it's generally supposed to be.

What Zelda doesn't do, though, is bother to shake up those mechanics and try new things. (Which is how you evolve a mechanic, by the way.)

Except it absolutely does, the Zelda series has always been very inventive with it's dungeons and items, not just with the dungeons themselves but also the very nature of how dungeons work in the games. Phantom Hourglass for instance had a central dungeon that, rather than completing all at once, was completed in parts over the course of the entire game. Windwaker did the same thing to a lesser extent with the Forsaken Fortress which almost doesn't seem like a dungeon at first, but totally is if you think about it. To say the Zelda series never shakes things up is just ludicrous.

Dungeons were designed in multiple layers, which I think is new for 2D Zelda

It's not.

And I'm pretty sure the plot is different, too.

The plot is different in every Zelda game.

Admittedly I'm probably about as familiar with the Metal Gear games as you are with Zelda (meaning I'm no authority on them at all),

Hey thanks for, uh, totally invalidating me like that. It really helps me to be in a discussion where I'm clearly not being taken seriously.

What? I wasn't attempting to invalidate you, you already said yourself that you haven't played the games much and have most of your knowledge of the series from a few walkthroughs you've seen. I was simply trying to say that when it comes to Metal Gear I only having a passing knowledge of most of the games so don't take my opinion of them too seriously.

I think you're misconstruing what I'm trying to say here, and have been every step of the way to invalidate me because I don't agree with you. That's how it feels at least.

It's not because you disagree with me, it's because I think you're passing judgment based on incomplete knowledge and just a general impression of the series which I see as being utterly unfair. So when you said:

I'm gonna say, yes, Zelda is incredibly formulaic in a way not dissimilar to Call of Duty.

It very much annoyed me because I knew it was wrong and, based on your own description of your knowledge of the series, you didn't have the right to pass such judgements.

To try and wrap this argument up, I think we should acknowledge that we clearly have different opinions of what constitutes being "incredibly formulaic" but at least agree that Zelda is not AS formulaic as the COD franchise.