The Zelda games are about as different from one another as they can get without changing genres entirely. Some feature time travel mechanics, some have huge open worlds while others are very narrow and focused on progression, some take place in hyrule, some don't. They have varying lengths and amounts of depth, as well as different overarching storylines. They all feature the acquiring of items more or less but those items often differ between games and even the very common ones, like bombs, often have unique versions or gameplay elements added in each game, such as bomb arrows, bombchus, or bomb rolling. Obviously the games have different art-styles and sometimes have dramatically different overworlds and methods of transport across them. Even the characters of Link and Zelda are usually different people in each game with their own backstories. Ya, they all feature dungeons and puzzle solving, but complaining about that is like complaining that every Mario game has platforming (which isn't actually true but you get my point).
In fact the only thing I'd say that's totally static across all the games is Link's default outfit(more or less), and the fact that he weilds some kind of sword.
The_Echo said:
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.
Seriously? Have you actually played any of the games or are you just basing this assessment on the fact that they all have "Zelda" in the title somewhere? Perhaps we'd have less of these threads if people actually played these games before forming opinions about them.
Zelda isn't like COD becuase it is an RPG, it isn't first person, and it doesn't have online multiplayer. [snip]
The purpose of the games are entirely different too. The protagonists in the COD games aren't silent, and they are intended to be actual "personalities". Meanwhile, Link is silent in order to allow you to project yourself on him. He has no personality except the one you give him. In addition, as I mentioned above, COD is an FPS, TLoZ is an RPG.
Call of Duty is a series of interchangeable sub-six hour long man-shoots, each resulting in little more than an exercise in hyper-masculine chest beating. Some entries can be distilled down to being little more than pro-American propaganda. [snip]
The Legend of Zelda is an RPG series of varying lengths, designs and story types. It is primarily an adventure game based around exploration and puzzle solving. [snip]
The comparison that is attempting to be made here[...]
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.
Poking fun at the comments I'm getting on title, discussion dissonance aside, I get it. You don't like the title. It's not literal enough. I thought it was a little more eye-grabbing, it's the only thing I could think of at the time, and most of you would know from the outset that the title did not reflect that type of discussion. Who would suggest something so outlandish? Leave it to this community to fuss or not realize on this sort of thing though to be fair I've fussed over smaller things hence why I understand why this happens in this community. I'll change it. Again, this is all fair enough, I suppose. I should have seen it coming and fair criticism is fair, but still.
This isn't the same argument as Buzzfeed inspired titles to articles. That's just petty lack of journalism for hits. This title just requires an extra second to think about if, for whatever reason, you decided to skip my actual original post and the poll (which has a better, more accurate description) and just read the title only.
Pink Gregory said:
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.
I was under the impression that Wind Waker got all freaked out over because before that game was announced and showcased there was a tech demo that had Ocarina of Time aesthetics but with a pretty big step up in graphical quality (for the time). It was a bit dishonest on Nintendo's part.
After that subsided there was the usual whining any franchise for any form of media that changes on a superficial level gets. The spread of Internet access and capability just makes it more obvious those people are there. I think there are more fans now of the game than there are detractors, many were swayed over once they tried the game. The people left over are just too cynical to give the game a chance though some may just legitimately not like the game. With all the Zeldas over the years it certainly is one of the less serious ones. I've never played it, but seeing the HD remake almost made me want a Wii U.
It's like the Aquaman of Zelda. Aquaman is now heavily defended online especially by comic fans as not useless, as a superhero that can totally take on Superman. The ubiquitous jokes at his expense in mainstream pop culture aren't as frequent as they used to be, what with the old Justice Friends show being gone and people losing interest with current cultural trends, but they were very heavily felt at the time so these Aquaman fans hold him up and say how awesome he is like fans today do with Wind Waker. And it's all simply because they remember that butthurt and feel like it's still there in sizable numbers hiding in some corner waiting to pounce on another "gem of perfection". There is still some sect of mainstream pop culture that makes fun of him, but it's minuscule compared to the legions of fans. Like what, there's...Big Bang Theory poking fun at him right now and ummm...that's it isn't it?
Tom_green_day said:
Woooow, CoD gets a LOT of hate, some of which isn't entirely educated. CoD takes more than a year to be made. Lots of the protagonists are silent. The games have changing settings, characters, tones and gameplay feels. In Black Ops 2 at least, there are a few open areas to explore, with hidden secrets and collectibles.
Are you really trying to argue that COD isn't the same shit with a different wrapping?Same gameplay,same game design,same multiplayer,and nothing is changed at all.And please don't use the "but it has more than one year of development" card because I can point out two games where more development time meant absolutely nothing.
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.
I know there was more to this discussion here and some things were cleared up on whether COD was really THAT formulaic (which may or may not have been what Tom was referring to; I need to reread that continuation from another poster explaining what he thinks Tom was trying to say as I'm too tired right now), but I'm just going to quote these to point out some specific things.
First off, what I find interesting about the COD franchise is that, while it has a solid fanbase and solid defenders who argue it's not just a repeat every year, it is the only true formulaic franchise I know of that has people who love it but also admit it for what it is like the hidden eagle did (though he also said he stopped liking it so not the best example). There are few Zelda fans I know who would do that, but I do some COD people who say they know it's a repeat and they don't care.
Tom_green_day: Second, while COD makes changes they are so ridiculously minor they can only be judged as superficial and only noticeable by the hardcore PVP online people. That may sound contradictory but just go with it for now; I'll explain in a second. A minor recoil change on a gun that won't matter much to the casual FPS or even the good players who just haven't played long enough to get intricate and nitpicky enough about it, a very minor change to the perk system, etc. Yeah, the setting changes, new voice actors are brought in, graphical capabilities are updated, all that stuff you're mentioning that is stereotypically picked on but not QUITE accurate for COD (though I'd argue it's just hyperbole meant to showcase COD's flaws). The thing is, so much gets reused outside of all that junk that it's insane and makes up the difference. This was even acknowledged at one point by a PR person for the company.
In the end, you point and you shoot. I just think FPS as a genre is harder to build upon and branch out and do something different with than other genres by its nature. That makes it more exciting to work with for someone like me. If I worked for a game company it'd be a challenge. Anyway, in order to notice these tiny gameplay changes one has to inject their own personal style into the game then infuse it with a passion for notice and appreciation beyond what most of us gamers have and we're pretty good at that stuff. While there is nothing wrong with small, if not subtle, changes that improve experiences especially for one's personal style of play a true, innovative change could be noticed far easier while still being just as deep if not deeper and would affect more of the gameplay than just a single gun addition or balancing issues in online matches. COD changes only affect so much.
I know COD is polished. It doesn't have many problems, if any, in the glithces department and gameplay is solid if monotonous, repetitive, or mundane compared to new IP shooters probably. I played 1 of the original 3 at a cousin's house and used to own COD4 for the Wii. But I could tell it was getting to be too formulaic for my tastes and so I balked like a lot of former fans did.
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.
Gotta agree with BiH-Kira and MrOwneddeath here on these kind of responses. Though, I must point out that my tactic of seeing general bits of a game (a clip here, a gameplay showcase here, a trailer over there) until you've seen a majority of what the game has to offer but summarized (so a total of anywhere from 10-30 minutes of footage that was just scattered throughout the X many hours game) has worked for me in the past. I've later played these games and felt how I thought I'd feel. Of course, those who just see clips here and there and don't specifically follow such a "Get a taste, but a solid if quick taste" method will think a game is more likely something it is not if that is how it would appear on a superficial level. Sorry, if that doesn't make sense. I don't know how to put it really.
Zelda is even harder to get away with because enough things stay the same that it seems even more so to be the same each game even though I would argue it's really not. If you follow my method though you might get a better feel for an individual Zelda game over another though nothing beats the actual experience of playing it. It's also possible I'm just better at getting a sense of what a game will be like from minimal non-playing exposure.
The Echo: Interesting opinion you have there I must admit. I'm not sure if that's a fair analysis for others though. Plenty of games fit your optimal scenario that I would still think "OOOOH, another X game in X series" simply because the series is consistently good and it has the title and aesthetic. It may feel like it does enough to stand on its own and not be some bad milking on its franchise, but I still think that on impulse. Either way, having not played A Link to the Past I can't be sure how I feel on that.
josemlopes said:
I think the biggest problem here isnt that COD is formulaic but the fact that people are just going around in the bandwagon 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.
[snip]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"
I suppose it is a bit of a bandwagon. I'm not going to pull the old "If so many people think so, it can't just be an angry mob mentality!" card because there are more people who buy it AND enjoy it and that's a weak response. Just see my earlier response to the responses to Tom_green day above in this very same post to see how I feel about the series. It may change, but it's not enough for me. If it was a movie, I'd feel like I'm paying for the same movie only the protagonist's new gun is either from a different time period or has some change in recoil that really affects nothing unless you're the most hardcore player ever. The plot is different in this movie sure, but it's basically either a retread or based in the same themes to such an extreme point of having nothing to stand on its own.
They're good games I suppose, but we've reached a level of gaming where COD is the bare minimum we should expect from an FPS. It's too bare bones honestly if you ask me. The mechanics I've seen in Receiver (though I haven't played it yet admittedly) were clever. We need more of that. We need more Portal. Halo shouldn't be 1 of the few richly designed FPSes (not as much of an over-reliance on certain environments and colors). COD is bad in the sense it's outdated. It's solid on its own if you ignore the rest of the franchise, the genre as a whole, and current gaming trends. That's just my opinion. For me, it's a game you'd play after not touching it in a while when you want some nostalgia or just to mess around with friends.
josemlopes said:
CaptainMarvelous said:
Meh, fuck it then, lets just walk away like gentlemen
Buuuuuuuuut, since you ended your conversation with this person on such a pleasant note I'll just agree to disagree. Understand where I'm coming from though as I do get where you're coming from. That's the least we can do. Right? At least, you agree COD is formulaic if not to the extent it's the same with different wrapping.
If you disagree with that of any series with a clear formula, then you're just overly attached. Zelda has a formula as does COD and Devil May Cry and Portal. Pretty much any franchise has some extent of a formula, though hopefully its formulaic only to the point of necessity; in other words, the forumla is kept to as low a minimum as it can be.
I like what I'm seeing minus some heated discussion. I knew most people would be on the "Zelda is not COD" side in this discussion on this site. I was curious if there were any legitimate counterpoints to be made. I'm tired of Yahtzee's reasons on how true this is and the sect of the Internet that suggested this in the first place (mainly COD defenders which is fine; they can like it if they want). They're both full of such silly, lazy reasoning and dispassion. If you don't like the franchise or are overprotective of a series that many continue to hold up as what's wrong with the game industry, whether that's a fair thing to do to COD or not, fine. Make a good case though.
I'm hoping to see some good cases made and in fact, I've already seen a couple. At the very least, they're better than the cases I'm used to seeing. Besides, I've never seen this topic discussed on the forums before though I'm sure it probably has been and I just didn't see it.
Keep in mind guys that I said this if you think COD gets too much hate:
jamail77 said:
If you think insults toward COD as too formulaic to the point of being a stale, milked franchise are too far and just a bad excuse from whiny haters then ok, fine. Compare Zelda to something you do think is more like that then.
This was removed unfortunately since I first saw it a year or two ago and going through Google cache and other methods to see the older, not-removed and/or screenshotted and/or saved version did not work. I'll leave it here anyway in case anyone can manage to figure that out.
If this is the blog I'm thinking of then this is the best case I've seen on how Zelda isn't really like COD in the rehashing department.
The Echo: Interesting opinion you have there I must admit. I'm not sure if that's a fair analysis for others though. Plenty of games fit your optimal scenario that I would still think "OOOOH, another X game in X series" simply because the series is consistently good and it has the title and aesthetic. It may feel like it does enough to stand on its own and not be some bad milking on its franchise, but I still think that on impulse. Either way, having not played A Link to the Past I can't be sure how I feel on that.
Yeah, the idea is kind of reliant on intonation. There's nothing wrong with wanting another Game X, of course. A new Game X is still another Game X.
I was intending to convey a sense of "I've seen this before" with the term another.
Olas said:
Seriously? Have you actually played any of the games or are you just basing this assessment on the fact that they all have "Zelda" in the title somewhere? Perhaps we'd have less of these threads if people actually played these games before forming opinions about them.
I've played a little bit of a few Zelda games (quite frankly they just aren't for me), and have watched full playthroughs of the original, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Skyward Sword.
In the same manner, I've played a little bit of Call of Duty and seen full playthroughs of it.
I'm basing the assessment on what I've observed of the games. Of course I don't have the same knowledge of the series that someone who's played every game has, though I think those people might be a bit biased by default anyway.
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.
The Links and Zeldas are all fated to essentially repeat similar fates, but the circumstances are always changing.
The trappings may look the same, but they actually change it up quite a bit.
Oh, I understood that. Don't worry. I'm just saying that because it's not another game in the series I'll still think another game in X series by reflex. You may feel it more in this mundane way and I respect that. Zeldas are too similar for you and not your style anyway it sounds. I'm just saying that not everyone who says that says it because it feels that way, but because it is very clearly a series regardless of how similar they are to each other. A new Final Fantasy is a different plot, different characters, and, from what I've played of some of the more recent ones at a friend's house, changed gameplay model. I'll still say, "Huh, another Final Fantasy. I get what you're saying. I just don't feel that way hence why I said your analysis is not why others might accuse Zelda of problems OR no problems because they do feel it's unique; it's just too formulaic for the problems crowd and strikes a good balance for the no problems crowd. Each Zelda is unique enough for me that while I say another X game by reflex I am really thinking a new X game.
The other thing too is that your optimal scenario is how a lot of Zelda fans already feel. We judge individual Zelda games. There may be references to prior games, but that's more due to quality comparison because they're in the same series than how similar they feel. I've never seen a Zelda fan say, "Oh, wow, look at that new Zelda game...I'm so bored". They're more like, "Wow, this looks interesting" or "This looks stupid" as if it were a new game. To be fair, some Zelda fans, including myself, are wishing the series would branch out more and Hyrule Warriors while seeming kind of gimmicky is probably a step in the right direction.
I think Zelda has striked a good balance when it comes to abusing formula, peaking with Skyward Sword, though I haven't played it. That last game is the limit; they have to be more bold and that game did take a few new directions from what I saw but they just aren't enough for me.
Besides, while I admit to only playing like 2 1/4 of the many games in the series (I only played a little bit of an old GameBody Zelda), a new feature is often highlighted. Ocarina of Time was all about being all sparkly, shiny new 3D graphics and aesthetics and Z-targeting. Twilight Princess was about the motion controls, the wolf form, and the direction. Wind Waker seems to have been about the lighter tone, sailing, and timeless aesthetic.
I would say a better comparison would be Call of Duty and Pokemon games. Both series have been essentially the same game for years now and only the people that put an appreciable amount of time into them would be able to really explain how one is different from the other besides new guns/Pokemon and upgraded graphics. I don't have as much experience with the Zelda games but I can see why someone might compare it to COD, but there are better examples.
Well, no. Zelda always offers some new innovation to the series, be it a new artstyle and overall aesthetic, motion controls, or a new key gameplay mechanic. Zelda also has the advantage of not having a new game released every single years, so it doesn't wear out its welcome like CoD.
Back in the day, this was a popular argument. There used to be blogs I'd see dedicated to proving people shouldn't hate on COD because Zelda is COD in the sense of overly formulaic agenda. Yahtzee has also concluded something similar to the point of rubbing it in his audience's collective face whenever he reviews a Zelda game. Because of his notoriety I think the connection may have gotten a resurgence in belief/defenders/attention though I have no evidence.
I already explained in an earlier post why I chose this topic over a Mario or Pokemon game despite them, perhaps, being more legitimate comparisons. You can look for it if you're curious as I forgot where I said this. It has much to do with how much more common the Zelda/COD argument seems to be.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
