| Khuutra said: Christ, could you try to indicate in some way which segments you're replying to with which parts of your post? Scrolling up and down constantly makes the whole thing hard to read. Number them or something. I'm not going to reply to segments individually, only make statements that apply to overarching parts of your post. Diminishing returns for 2D Zelda: Even if you like to pretend that the "formula" of the game was deviated from starting with Link to the Past, that doesn't change the fact that the first nadir of 2D Zelda was Adventures of Link, not LttP. The appeal of AoL was the lowest of the first three 2D Zelda games; but the general trend of appeal in those games was downward, and Link's Awakening ended up being the very lowest of them. Absolute appeal: Absolute appeal means that Zelda games do not increase in popularity based on population they can sell to, according to past sales trends. Sales are determined by the absolute appeal of the game in question. The absolute appeal of Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess is higher than that of Legend of Zelda; Phantom Hourglass beats out every game in the series but those three. That's a fact. Zeniths and nadirs: This doesn't really belong in a conversation about what Zelda "should" be, it's a component of a different discussion, and I retract it with apology. This is also the case for a discussion of regional appeal, though; Japan's buying habits are running counter to the west for Zelda (Twilight Princess sold poorly there but is the best-selling game in the series by a considerable margin in both the Americas and Europe), which is a point that bears addressing, but only in another discussion. Dictation of Zelda: No, what you buy or do not buy does not determine how well the game will sell, and assuming it does is fallacious. More, even that wouldn't determine what Zelda should be, only what form of Zelda would sell best (and so far, it's a game in the style of Ocarina or TP). The two things are not the same. Your rejection of puzzles isn't the norm, but the norm being accpetance doesn't necessarily mean that Zelda should have dungeoneering as a focus; the simple fact is that it does. Appeal of Skyward Sword: I'm not having this discussion with you. You're set enough in how you see the game that I'm not going to be able to change it by talking to you. Narrative focus: In Ocarina of Time your rival Mido was jealous of how much the prettiest girl in the village, Saria, liked you. The first segment of the game centers around your quest to gain favor with the village elder and the girl, and you would return at several necessary parts throughout the game to revisit this place and further expand on your relationship with the girl and with the village itself, up to and including Mido. In Wind Waker you team up with the pirate Tetra to go find your sister. Much of your movement in the game is dictated by Tetra's instructions, and you will visit the pirates several necessary times over the course of the story to further plan out how to rescue your sister with their help. When you said Ocarina and Wind Waker weren't like that, you simultaneously are wrong and also hit upon the point: while those descriptions can be used to accurately summarize the plot viewed from a certain perspective, they don't ultimately capture the overarching plot of the games. The same is going to be true of Skyward Sword, regardless of whether or not you need to come back to the main village in Skyloft or not; the "plot" in Zelda is only ever made up of how the relationships between characters dictate the actions that characters take toward each other, and that's true in every game from the Legend of Zelda all the way through Spirit Tracks. The most important relationships in the game are always, always going to be between Link, Zelda, and Ganon - or whoever's standing in for Ganon. Ultimately the plot will revolve around saving either the girl or the world, and pretending anything else is disengenuous - yes, even with Aonuma saying it, because Aonuma constantly makes misleading jokes about the direction of the game. Don't you remember when he said the next game (this one) would be about a Dancing Link? What Zelda should be: It's obvious that you think the first game should be the model for all future Zelda games, but there's no particular reason for anyone else to agree with you, and no objective measure by which the original game can be considered inherently superior to its successors. Don't buy the game if you don't like it. That's perfectly fine, and God knows nobody can make you bu ythe game. But, at the same time, it would be doing yourself and everyone else a favor if you could manage to stave off the self-entitled line of thought that can be summarized as "Zelda should be what I want and if Nintendo isn't doing that then they're destroying Zelda". You think Zelda has never veered away from what I wanted in the games? Wrong. That happens more or less every time a new game is announced. But change in this series is inevitable, and I know that my expectations aren't going to be fulfilled every time (and they shouldn't be; not only are they transient and mercurial but they also wouldn't be particularly fun, sometimes) so it's better for me and everyone involved to see the games as they are, not according to some imaginary grading system whereby they're compared solely to games from the series's distant past. That's all. I've said my peace. I'm done talking to you; the last word in this discussion is yours for the taking. |
Well, since you've so kindly offered it, I'll make this short.
In your idea of absolute appeal, you seem to limit yourself to a simple observation without aking why it is so. Looking at past sales trends is all nice and all, but by that token the Wii should have sold like what, 7 million? As for this, "No, what you buy or do not buy does not determine how well the game will sell, and assuming it does is fallacious", uhh, lolwut? If I don't buy it, that means it has sold exactly 1 less copy than it could have, so what I buy or don not buy, along with a few other million people, does very much determine how well a game sells. I think that you're overstating the importance of the story in the latter Zelda games to Zelda overall, and finally, it's rather a shame that you have this mentality of laping up whatever new Zelda game comes out, even if it's worse than before. You should want the best gaming experiences, not just what's given to you.
But hey, thanks for the discussion, it was pretty good. Be seeing elsewhere on these forums.
